Ji/fSfC 


J'    ,' 


l:^^'.- 


u 


0:":- 

J'^J    .       .'Si--  : 


^.U\  Ou^    O  M^La_ 


GEITERAL    INTRODUCTION    TO 
THE    OLD    TESTAMENT 

THE   TEXT 


BOOKS  BY 

PROF.  WILLIAM  HENRY  GREEN 

Published    by   CHARLES    SCRIBNER'S   SONS 

General  Introduction  to  the  Old  Testament — 
The  Canon.    Crown  8vo $1.50 

General  Introduction  to  the  Old  Testament — 
The  Text.    Crown  8vo $1.50 

The  Higher  Criticism  of  the  Pentateuch. 
Crown  8vo $1.50 

The  Unity  of  the  Book  of  Genesis.  Crown  8vo   $3.00 

Celebration  of  the  Fiftieth  Anniversary  of  the 
Appointment  of  Prof.  William  Henry  Green 
as  an  Instructor  in  Princeton  Theological 
Seminary.    With  Portrait.    8vo    .    .    net,  $1.50 


GENERAL  INTRODUCTION 
TO  THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 


THE    TEXT 


BY 


WILLIAM   HENEY   GEEEN,  D.D.,   LL.D. 

PROFE8SOB   OF    ORIENTAL    AND    OLD    TESTAMENT    LITEBATUIIE    IN    PRINCBTON 
THBOLOGICAL    SEMINARY 


NEW  YORK 

CHAKLES    SCKIBNEK'S    SONS 

1913 


Copyright,  1899,  by 
CHAKLES  SCRIBNER'S  SONS 


PREFACE 

The  subject  of  the  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament  was 
discussed  in  a  previous  volume.  The  history  of  its 
formation  was  traced,  the  determining  principle  of  its 
collection  was  considered,  and  the  books  contained  in  it 
were  identified.  One  who  is  entering  upon  the  study 
of  these  books  will  further  desire  to  inquire  into  the 
character  and  condition  of  their  text.  The  first  thing 
to  engage  attention  is  the  language  in  which  the  Old 
Testament  was  originally  written,  in  its  relation  to  other 
forms  of  human  speech,  and  its  special  adaptation  to  be 
the  vehicle  of  this  preliminary  revelation.  The  history 
of  Hebrew  as  a  living  language  will  bring  to  light  diver- 
sities of  usage  in  different  styles  of  composition  and  in 
different  periods  of  time  ;  and  it  is  a  matter  of  interest 
and  importance  to  inquire  whether  any  facts  ascertained 
tend  to  discredit  the  genuineness  of  the  books  of  Moses 
in  whole  or  in  part.  And  the  history  of  its  study  since 
Hebrew  ceased  to  be  spoken  will  show  what  reason 
there  is  to  believe  that  it  is  correctly  understood  by 
modern  scholars.  The  changes  which  have  taken  place 
in  its  written  characters  naturally  suggest  the  inquiry 
whether  they  have  in  any  way  proved  detrimental  to 
the  accuracy  with  which  the  text  has  been  preserved,  or 
have  injuriously  affected  its  interpretation.  And  in  par- 
ticular the  origin  and  authority  of  the  vowel  points 
must  be  investigated  in  order  to  ascertain  whether  they 

▼ 


VI  PREFACE 

can  be  confidently  relied  upon  as  a  trustworthy  guide 
to  the  meaning  of  the  sacred  text. 

The  question  then  arises,  how  has  this  original  text 
of  the  Old  Testament  been  transmitted  to  us,  and  what 
guarantee  is  there  of  the  fidelity  and  care  with  which 
this  has  been  done?  This  leads  to  the  consideration 
of  manuscripts,  their  various  classes,  the  oversight  ex- 
tended over  them,  the  rigid  rules  prescribed  for  their 
transcription,  their  age,  their  wide  dispersion  and  gen- 
eral character.  The  Old  Testament  was  besides  early 
translated  into  various  languages,  and  these  ancient 
versions  still  exist.  It  is  important  to  know  something 
of  the  character  and  history  of  these  versions,  that  some 
judgment  may  be  formed  of  the  value  of  the  testimony 
which  they  render  respecting  the  primitive  text.  Man- 
uscripts, Versions,  the  quotations  of  Scriptural  passages 
in  early  writers,  and  their  statements  about  them,  includ- 
ing that  vast  body  of  critical  annotations  known  as  the 
Massora,  comprise  the  apparatus  available  for  tracing 
the  history  of  the  text  from  age  to  age  during  the  long 
interval  which  has  elapsed  from  the  time  of  the  sacred 
writers  to  the  present  day.  They  constitute  likewise 
the  material  for  what  is  technically  called  textual  criti- 
cism, the  object  of  which  is  to  ascertain  with  the  utmost 
possible  precision  the  exact  words  of  the  sacred  pen- 
men, as  determined  by  a  minute  and  painstaking  exam- 
ination of  all  external  authorities. 

Princeton,  N.  J., 

November  1,  1899. 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 

THE  TEXT  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 
1. 

PAGE 

Its  External  Form 1 

Written    mainly  in    Hebrew,  a  few    sections  in  Ara- 
meau,  1. 

II. 

The  Semitic  Family  of  Languages 2 


Early  attempts  to  discover  the  primitive  language,  2  ; 
wrong  methods,  3 ;  eight  families,  three  groups,  isolating, 
agglutinative,  inflective,  4 ;  uuity  approximated,  if  not  de- 
monstrated, Indo-European  and  Semitic  families  differ  as  to 
external  or  internal  flexion,  5  ;  constitution  of  roots,  alpha- 
bets, 6  ;  triliteral  roots,  derivative  forms,  7  ;  comparative 
richness  in  inflections,  number  of  branches,  fluctuating  or 
stationary,  8  ;  respective  character  of  races,  adaptation  to 
the  Old  Testament  revelation,  9  ;  pictorial  or  reflective,  10  ; 
definite  or  indefinite,  11  ;  fitted  for  preliminary  revelation, 
different  names,  12 ;  home  of  the  Semitic  family,  principal 
branches,  13  ;  their  mutual  relation,  14. 

IIL 

The  Hebrew  Language 16 

Derivation  of  the  name,  16 ;  Hebrew,  Israel,  Jew, 
Grecian,  Hebrew  language,  17  ;  dialects  or  provincialisms, 
18 ;  prose  and  poetry,  19  ;  Arabisms,  Aramteisms,  pro- 
phetic style,  20;  periods,  21  ;  deterioration,  objection  to  the 
antiquity  of  the  Pentateuch  answered,  22-24  ;  alleged  Ara- 
maic forms  and  words  of  late  date  in  the  document  P,  ^5, 
vii 


Vm  CONTENTS 

PAGE 

26  ;  answered  by  Dr.  Driver,  27-29  ;  copiousness  of  Hebrew, 
30  ;  rich  iu  synonyms,  31  ;  economy  of  roots  and  words,  32  ; 
lost  roots,  relation  to  cognate  tongues,  33 ;  primitive  mean- 
ings, 34 ;  religious  terms,  Egyptian  words,  35  ;  Sanscrit, 
Persian,  Greek,  36 ;  Semitic  words  in  western  tongues,  37  ; 
when  Hebrew  ceased  to  be  spoken,  38  ;  supplanted  by  Ara- 
mean,  its  peculiarities,  39  ;  Jewish  and  Christian  Aramean, 
40;  history  of  the  study  of  Hebrew  among  the  Jews,  41 ; 
early  Christians,  42  ;  revival  of  letters,  the  reformers,  43  ; 
traditional  school,  comparative,  44  ;  idiomatic,  45 ;  compre- 
hensive, 46  ;  Dr.  Driver  shows  that'^Db^  in  P  is  no  proof  of 
late  date,  47-54  ;  nor  is  Tbm,  55,  56. 

IV. 

Hebrew  Letters  and  Vowels 57 

Two  forms  of  Hebrew  letters,  their  mutual  relation,  later 
rabbis,  earlier  traditions,  57  ;  Origen,  Jerome^  58  ;  Buxtorf's 
hypothesis,  59  ;  Gesenius,  Kopp,  accepted  view,  60  ;  causes 
of  change,  when  it  took  place,  61  ;  undue  importance  at- 
tributed to  it,  62 ;  antiquity  and  authority  of  vowels  and 
accents,  Aben  Ezra,  Elias  Levita,  63  ;  Cappellus,  Buxtorf, 
64  ;  not  coeval  with  the  letters,  65  ;  Origen,  Jerome,  66 ; 
Targums,  67 ;  Talmud,  68  ;  when  vowel-signs  were  intro- 
duced, 71 ;  two  systems,  72  ;  value  of  the  vowel  signs,  73. 

V. 
Hebrew  Manuscripts 75 

Two  classes  of  manuscripts,  75  ;  Synagogue  MSS.,  76; 
those  for  private  use,  77  ;  their  age,  how  determined,  Tarn 
and  Velsh  character,  78  ;  subscriptions,  Massoretic  and  non- 
Massoretic,  79  ;  ancient  codices  in  high  repute,  dates  of 
others,  80. 

VI. 

Versions  : 
the  septuagint  . 82 

Versions  ancient  and  immediate,  mediate  in  whole  or  in 
part,  82  ;  origin  of  the  Septuagint,  Aristeas'  account,  83 ; 
Aristobulus,  Josephus,  Philo,  Justin  Martyr,  Irenseus,  the 
Talmud,  84 ;  Epiphanius,  Aristeas  discredited,  85  ;  when 
and  why  the  law  was  translated,  86  ;  the  rest  of  the  Old  Tes- 


CONTENTS  ix 

PAGE 

tament,  diversity  of  translators,  87  ;  freedom  in  translating, 
how  regarded  by  Jews,  88;  and  Christians,  other  Greek  ver- 
sions, Aquila,  89  ;  Theodotion,  Symmachus,  Origen's  Hex- 
apla,  91  ;  Quiuta,  Sexta,  Septima,  92  ;  aim  and  method  of 
the  Ilexapla,  9^}  ;  Octapla,  Tetrapla,  94 ;  what  became  of 
this  great  work,  95  ;  its  effect  upon  the  text  of  the  Septuagint, 
revisions  by  Pamphilus,  Lucian  and  Hesychiiis,  96  ;  princi- 
pal manuscripts,  printed  editions,  97  ;  Lagarde's  scheme  for 
restoring  the  text,  the  Septuagint  Daniel,  99  ;  other  sources 
cited  by  Greek  fathers,  versions  made  from  the  Septuagint, 
Ethiopic,  100 ;  Egyptian,  Gothic,  Armenian,  Georgic, 
Slavic,  101 ;  Arabic,  102. 

THE  TARGUMS 102 

Their  origin,  102  ;  earliest  mention,  103  ;  ten  Targums, 
Onkelos,  a  misnomer,  confused  with  Aquila,  104 ;  accepted 
in  Babylon,  105  ;  general  character,  printed  editions,  106  ; 
Jonathan  (or  Joseph)  on  the  Prophets,  107 ;  general  char- 
acter, Pseudo-Jonathan  and  Jerusalem  on  the  Pentateuch, 
108  ;  other  Targums,  110. 

TIfE   SYRIAC  PESHITO Ill 

Why  so  called,  made  by  Jews  or  Christians  ?  Ill  ;  general 
character,  relation  to  the  Septuagint,  traditions  of  its  origin, 
112 ;  its  probable  date,  the  Syro-Hexaplaric  version,  113. 

THE    LATIN  VULGATE 113 

Early  Latin  versions,  the  Itala,  revised  by  Jerome,  114 
Roman  and  Galilean  psalter,  Jerome's  own  translation,  va 
riously  regarded,  115;  his  defence,  progress  of  the  work 
116 ;  displaced  the  older  version,  117  ;  use  of  the  term  Vul 
gate,  confusion  of  texts,  118  ;  attempts  at  correction,  Cassi 
odorus,  Alcuin,  Nicolaus,  Cistercians,  Correctoria  Biblica 
119  ;  University  of  Paris,  Dominicans,  Franciscans,  the  Sor 
bonne,  120  ;  Roger  Bacon's  testimony,  printed  editions,  181 
revision  of  the  text,  corrected  translations,  the  Council  of 
Trent,  122  ;  diversity  of  opinions,  final  action,  123  ;  differ- 
ently interpreted,  124  ;  commission  appointed  to  correct  the 
text,  checked  by  the  Pope,  125  ;  editions  prepared  by  schol- 
ars and  publishers,  126  ;  that  of  Sixtus  V.,  127;  recalled 
and  corrected,  128  ;  that  of  Clement  VIII.,  129. 


X  CONTENTS 

PAGK 
THE  SAMARITAN  PENTATEUCH 129 

First  copy  obtained  by  Delia  Valle,  129  ;  published  in 
polyglots,  130  ;  different  opinions  as  to  its  origin,  arguments 
tracing  it  back  to  the  schism  of  Jeroboam,  131,  132  ;  shown 
to  be  invalid,  its  probable  date,  divergence  from  the  Masso- 
retic  text,  133,  134  ;  different  views  as  to  its  critical  value, 
investigated  by  Gesenius,  grammatical  emendations,  135; 
glosses,  conjectural  emendations,  conformed  to  parallel  pas- 
sages, corrections  of  imagined  difficulties,  130, 137  ;  Samari- 
tanisnis,  Samaritan  ideas,  138  ;  relation  to  the  Septuagint, 
139  ;  how  explained,  140  ;  Samaritan  version,  Arabic  ver- 
sion, 141. 

VII. 

The  History  of  the  Text 142 

Four  periods,  142  ;  graving  on  stone  and  metal,  books, 
143  ;  liability  to  error  in  transcription,  standard  copies,  ven- 
eration for  sacred  books,  words  perhaps  separated  in  early 
Hebrew  writing,  144  ;  some  evident  errors,  others  alleged, 
but  differently  explained,  145  ;  alleged  changes  in  canoniza- 
tion unfounded,  second  period,  146  ;  Massora,  change  in 
the  Hebrew  character,  vowels,  147  ;  established  text  shown 
by  the  K'ris,  verses,  148  ;  sections,  149;  different  views  re- 
specting the  text,  150  ;  not  wilfully  altered  by  the  Jews, 
critical  decisions  attributed  to  the  scribes,  151  ;  extraordi- 
nary points,  the  Talmud,  third  period,  152  ;  vowel  signs, 
enlargement  of  the  Massora,  153  ;  tables  of  various  readings, 
Parashas,  Haphtaras,  154;  Sedarim,  fourth  period,  division 
into  chapters,  enumeration  of  verses,  155  ;  printed  editions, 
rabbinical  Bibles,  critical  editions,  156  ;  polyglots,  Complu- 
tensian,  157 ;  Antwerp,  Parisian,  London,  158,  159. 

VIII. 

The  Criticism  of  the  Text 160 

Higher  criticism,  160  ;  Epistles  of  Phalaris,  Wisdom  of 
Solomon,  additions  to  Esther  and  Daniel,  161  ;  naturalistic 
prepossessions,  textual  criticism,  162 ;  sources  of  error  in 
manuscripts,  163  ;  intentional  alterations,  value  of  manu- 
scripts, how  estimated,  all  represent  the  Massoretic  text,  164; 
established  before  the  Massorites,   early  quotations,  165 ; 


CONTENTS  XI 

PAOB 

Talmud,  Origen,  Jerome,  166;  versions,  their  critical,  ex- 
egetical  and  hermeneiitical  value,  167  ;  caution  required  in 
their  use  for  criticism,  168  ;  character  of  the  version,  169  ; 
state  of  its  text,  Targums,  Aquila,  Symmachus,  Theodo- 
tion,  Jerome,  correspond  mostly  with  the  Massoretic  text, 
170  ;  so  the  Peshito,  but  Septuagint  and  Samaritan  differ, 
171 ;  how  explained,  172, 173  ;  superiority  of  the  Massoretic 
text,  internal  evidence  as  a  test  of  various  readings,  174 ; 
wrong  use  of  duplicate  passages,  175  ;  acrostics,  176  ;  deca- 
logues, poetic  structure,  critical  conjecture,  177  ;  hypothesis 
of  one  primary  manuscript,  178,  179 ;  general  conclusion, 
180,  181. 

Index ^^^ 


TREATISES  CONSULTED  ON  THE 
TEXT 

In  addition  to  works  mentioned  elsewhere,  the  follow- 
ing have  been  consulted  in  regard  to  the  text : 

J.  BuxTORF  :  Tiberias  sive  Commentarius  Masorethicus,  1620. 

J.  BuxTORP,  Fil.  :  Tractatus  de  Punctorum  Origine,  Antiquitate  et 

Authoritate,  1648. 
B.  Walton  :   Prolegomena   in  Biblia  Sacra  Polyglotta,   Vol.   I. 

1657. 
H.  HoDY  :  Contra  Historiam  Aristeae  de  LXX  Interpretibus  Disser- 

tatio,  1684. 
H.  HoDY  :  De  Bibliorum  Textibus  Originalibus,  Versionibus  Grsecis 

et  Latina  Vulgata,  1705. 
H.   Prideaux  :   The  Old  and  New  Testament  Connected,   1715- 

1717. 
B.  Kennicott  :    Dissertatio  super  Ratione  Textus  Hebraici  V.  T. , 

1756.     Dissertatio  Secunda,  1765. 
B.  Kennicott  :  The  Ten  Annual  Accounts  of  the  Collation  of  He- 
brew Manuscripts  of  the  Old  Testament,  1770. 
O.  G.  Tychsen  :  Tentamen  de  Variis  Codicum  Heb.   Generibus, 

1772.     Befreyetes  Tentamen,  1774. 
J.  B.  DE  Rossi :  Variae  Lectiones  Veteris  Testament!,  1784. 
W.  Gesenius  :  Geschichte  der  Hebraeischen  Sprache  und  Schrift, 

1815. 
W.   Gesenius  :     De    Pentateuchi    Samaritani    Origine,    Indole  et 

Auctoritate,  1815. 
G.    B.   Winer:    De    Versionis    Pentateuchi    Samaritanae    Indole, 

1817. 
G.  Riegler  :  Kritische  Geschichte  der  Vulgata,  1820. 


Xiv    TREATISES  CONSULTED  ON  THE  TEXT 

U.  F.  Kopp :  Bilder  und  Schriften  der  Vorzeit,  Vol.  II.,  1821. 

L.    Van    Ess  :    Pragmatisch  -  kritische    Geschichte   der    Vulgata, 

1825. 
L.  HmzEL :  De  Pentateuchi  Versionis  Syriacas  quam  Peschito  vo- 

cant  Indole,  1825. 
A.  T.  Hoffmann  :  Hebraeische  Schrift,  in  Ersch  und  Gruber,  All- 

gemeine  Encyklopaedie,  1828. 
H.  HuPFELD :  Beleucbtung  dunkler  Stellen  d.  A.  T.  Textgeschichte 

in  Studien  und  Kritiken,  1830. 
ZuNz :  Die  Gottesdienstlichen  Vortrage  der  Juden,  1832. 
Z.  Frankel  :  Vorstudien  zu  der  Septuaginta,  1841. 
Z.  Frankel  :  Ueber  den  Einfluss  der  Palaestinischen  Exegese  auf 

die  Alexandrinische  Hermeneutik,  1851. 
A.  DiLLMANN  :  Bibeltextdes  A.  T.,  Herzog Encyklopaedie,  II.,  1854. 

Second  Edition,  1878. 

E.  Bertheau:  Hebraeische  Sprache  in  Herzog  Encyklopaedie,  V. 

1856. 
A.  Geiger  :  Urschrift  und  Uebersetzungen  der  Bibel,  1857. 
G.  F.  Oehler:  Hebraeische  Sprache,  in  Encyklopaedie  d.  Erzie- 

hungs-und  Unterrichts-Wesen,  III.,  1862. 
S.  Pinsker  :  Babylonisch-Hebraeische  Punktationssystem,  1863. 

F.  Kaulen  :  Geschichte  der  Vulgata,  1868. 

H.   EwALD  :    Lehrbuch  der  Hebraeischen  Sprache,   8th  Edition, 

1870. 
Z.  Frankel  :  Zu  dem  Targum  der  Propheten,  1872. 

E.  RiEHM  :  Die  Sogenannte  Grundschrift  d.  Pentateuchs,  in  Studien 

und  Kritiken,  1872. 

F.  Field  :  Originis  Hexaplorum  quae  supersunt,  1875. 

A.  Kuenen  :  Les  Origines  du  Texte  Masorethique  de  I'Ancien  Tes- 
tament, traduit  par  A.  Carriere,  1875. 

Fritzsche  :  Alexandrinische  Uebersetzung  d.  A.  T.,  in  Herzog- 
Plitt  Encyklopaedie,  I.,  1878. 

V.  Ryssel  :  De  Elohistge  Pent.  Sermone,  1878. 

E.  KoENiG :  De  Criticae  Sacrae  Argumento  a  Linguae  Legibus  Rep- 
etito,  1879. 

E.  Koenig:  Lehrgebaude  d.  Hebraeischen  Sprache,  1881. 

GiESEBRECHT :  Der  Sprachgebrauch  des  Hexateuchischen  Elohis- 
ten,  in  Zeitschrift  Mr  die  A.  T.  Wissenschaft,  1881. 

S.  R.  Driver  :  Some  Alleged  Linguistic  Affinities  of  the  Elohist,  in 
the  Journal  of  Philology,  XL ,  1882. 


TREATISES  CONSULTED  ON  THE  TEXT     XV 

A.   Berliner  :    Targum   Onkclos   Herausgegeben  una  Erlautert, 
1884. 

A.  Dillmann:  Sprache  der  Priesterschrift  A  (P),  Num. -Dent.,  pp. 

663-665,  1886. 

B.  Stade  :  Geschichte  des  Volkes  Israel,  1887. 

C.  H.  CoRNiLL  :  Einleitung  in  das  Alte  Testament,  1891. 

C.  A.  Briggs  :  General  Introduction  to  the  Study  of  Holy  Scripture, 
1899. 


THE  TEXT  OP  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 


ITS  EXTERNAL  FORM 

The  books  which  compose  the  Canon  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament having  been  ascertained,  we  proceed  to  consider 
their  original  form,  or  the  language  in  which  they  were 
written,  which  was  that  of  the  covenant  people,  the  peo- 
ple of  Israel,  to  whom  they  were  primarily  addressed. 
Accordingly,  the  original  language  of  the  Old  Testament 
is  the  Hebrew,  with  the  exception  of  a  few  chapters  in 
Daniel  (ii.  4-vii.  28)  and  Ezra  (iv.  8-vi.  19  ;  vii.  12-27) 
and  a  verse  in  Jeremiah  (x.  11),  which  were  written  in 
Aramean  at  a  time  when  the  language  was  in  a  transition 
state.^ 

In  order  to  understand  the  significance  of  the  language 
of  the  Old  Testament  in  its  bearing  upon  its  contents 
and  its  interpretation,  it  will  be  necessary  to  inquire 
first  into  its  character  as  related  to  the  other  languages 
of  mankind,  and  then  to  give  a  more  particular  account 
of  the  language  itself  and  of  its  history,  both  as  a  living 
language  and  since  it  ceased  to  be  spoken. 

'  Two  Aramean  words  occur,  Gen.  xxxi.  47,  in  the  name  given  by 
Laban  to  a  heap  of  stones,  to  which  Jacob  gave  an  equivalent  Hebrew 
name. 


THE  SEMITIC   FAMILY   OF  LANGUAGES 

We  are  told  in  Gen.  xi.  1  that  the  whole  earth  was 
originally  of  one  language  and  of  the  same  words.  This 
verse  has  been  to  philology  what  the  chimera  of  the 
philosopher's  stone  was  to  chemical  science,  a  stimulus 
to  earnest  and  long-continued  endeavors,  which,  though 
unsuccessful  as  far  as  the  prime  object  of  their  search 
was  concerned,  nevertheless  opened  the  way  to  the  most 
unexpected  and  brilliant  discoveries  of  a  different  de- 
scription. Starting  from  the  statement  of  revelation 
that  there  was  a  time  when  but  one  language  was  spoken 
on  earth,  it  was  conjectured  that  this  primitive  tongue 
might  still  be  in  existence  and  might  be  recognized 
among  the  multiplicity  of  dialects  which  divide  man- 
kind, the  proof  of  its  primitive  character  lying  in  its 
being  made  to  appear  that  all  other  languages  might 
have  been  derived  from  it.  This  mother  tongue  of  all 
was  the  object  of  a  most  zealous  search,  extended  in- 
vestigations were  made,  lists  of  words  were  gathered 
by  enterprising  travellers  from  the  remotest  parts,  the 
vocabularies  of  different  languages  were  examined  and 
compared,  and  relations  real  or  imaginary  were  pointed 
out.  Ardent  enthusiasts  claimed,  each  for  his  favorite 
tongue,  the  honor  of  having  been  the  primal  fount  of 
human  speech.  But  as  the  investigations  proceeded 
and  materials  were  accumulated,  it  became  more  and 
more  apparent  that  no  satisfactory  result  could  thus  be 
reached.     In   fact,  the  methods  adopted  at  the  outset 

2 


THE   SEMITIC   FAMILY   OF   LANGUAGES  3 

were  seriously  at  fault,  and  the  conclusions  arrived  at 
were  as  a  matter  of  course  unreliable. 

1.  It  was  assumed  that  the  bare  similarity  of  sound 
between  words  of  like  sense,  taken  at  random,  was  suf- 
ficient to  establish  an  identity  of  origin;  and  this 
when  a  slight  knowledge  of  the  history  of  words  would 
show  that  the  agreement  was  wholly  casual. 

2.  The  simple  presence  of  the  same  or  related  words 
in  two  languages  was  thought  sufficient  to  establish  an 
organic  connection  between  those  languages,  without 
inquiring  first  whether  these  words  may  not  have  been 
borrowed  by  one  from  the  other,  and  so  form  no  part  of 
its  original  and  native  stock. 

3.  The  affinity  of  languages  was  rested  solely  upon 
etymologies,  to  the  disregard  of  grammatical  structure, 
which  is  a  far  truer  test  of  kinship  between  tongues. 

4.  It  was  conceived  that  if  two  tongues  were  related, 
one  must  have  been  directly  derived  from  the  other, 
when  the  proper  inference  might  be  that  both  were  alike 
descended  from  some  common  source. 

It  needed  but  the  correction  of  these  errors  and  the 
adoption  of  a  method  based  upon  sounder  principles  to 
bring  order  into  the  vast  mass  of  discordant  materials 
upon  which  students  of  language  had  hitherto  em- 
ployed themselves  in  vain.  As  soon  as  they  began  to 
penetrate  beneath  the  surface,  the  most  astonishing 
analogies  and  most  remarkable  and  pervading  similari- 
ties of  structure  revealed  themselves  in  widely  separated 
tongues.  Languages  arranged  themselves  spontane- 
ously, as  it  were,  into  families  and  groups.  And  now 
philology  seems  to  be  working  its  way  back  to  the  point 
from  which  it  set  out,  viz.,  the  original  unity  of  lan- 
guage, though  by  a  very  different  and  unexpected  route. 
The  immense  multitude  and  variety  of  human  tongues 
are  in  the   judgment   of  scholars^  reducible  to  eight 


4  GENERAL  INTRODUCTION 

families,  the  several  members  of  each  of  which  are  more 
or  less  closely  related.  These  families  may  again  be 
classified  in  respect  to  certain  marked  peculiarities  of 
structure  into  three  grand  groups,  which  have  been  re- 
spectively denominated : 

1.  The  isolating  languages  or  languages  of  undevel- 
oped roots,  in  which  there  is  no  inflection,  no  parts  of 
speech  properly  so  called,  no  modification  in  the  forms 
of  words  to  express  relations  of  person,  number,  gen- 
der, tense,  mood,  case,  etc.,  and  no  derivation  of  words 
one  from  the  other,  but  the  ultimate  roots  are  thrown 
together  loosely  like  stones  in  a  heap,  hard,  angular, 
void  of  all  affinity  or  coherence. 

2.  The  agglutinative  languages,  which  are  one  step 
removed  from  the  unyielding  stiffness  and  rigidity 
of  those  just  spoken  of.  They  possess  all  the  various 
parts  of  speech,  which  are  subject  to  regular  modifica- 
tions of  form  to  express  the  different  relations  of  ideas. 
The  various  roots  are  conglomerated  with  certain  syl- 
lables in  the  formation  of  words  and  their  inflection. 
These  formative  syllables  are,  however,  only  cemented 
to  the  root,  not  organically  attached  to  it,  but  preserv- 
ing their  independent  character  like  the  separate  courses 
of  hewn  stone  in  a  building. 

3.  The  inflected  languages  are  the  most  highly  de- 
veloped and  the  most  perfect  of  all  the  forms  of  human 
speech.  The  root  and  the  formative  or  inflective  sylla- 
bles are  in  them  so  intimately  imited,  that  to  the  popular 
consciousness  they  have  become  one  and  inseparable. 
They  resemble  not  a  building  constructed  by  adding 
one  layer  to  another  till  the  whole  is  finished,  but  a 
growth,  whose  branches  are  not  merely  cemented  to  the 
trunk,  but  indissolubly  joined  to  its  very  substance. 

'  See  Max  Miiller's  Lectures  on  the  Science  of  Language,  and  Whit- 
ney's Language  and  the  Study  of  Language. 


THE   SEMITIC   FAMILY   OF   LANGUAGES  6 

It  is  scarcely  to  be  expected  that  it  will  ever  be  possi- 
ble by  any  scientific  process  to  demonstrate  the  original 
unity  of  these  families  and  groups  of  tongues.  In  as- 
scending  from  the  existing  forms  of  languages  and  tracing 
them  backward  toward  their  source,  the  last  results  that 
can  be  reached  by  the  most  subtle  and  searching  analysis 
are  too  far  removed  from  the  beginnings  of  human  speech 
to  warrant  the  hope  that  the  long  accretions  of  ages  can 
be  eliminated  so  as  to  detect  those  primal  and  original 
germs  from  which  all  languages  have  sprung.  This, 
however,  philology  can  do.  It  can  enable  us  to  under- 
stand how  the  different  tongues  and  dialects  spoken  on 
the  earth  might  be  as  various  and  as  widely  sundered  as 
they  now  are,  though  all  descended  from  one  aboriginal 
stock,  by  pointing  out  influences  that  have  been  at  work 
potent  enough  to  bring  about  all  the  diversity  which 
now  exists. 

The  inflective  group,  which  is  the  highest  type  of 
language,  embraces  two  families,  spoken  alike  by  the 
white  race  and  by  the  nations  most  influential  in  his- 
tory and  foremost  in  civilization  and  enlightenment,  and 
as  a  consequence  the  best  known  and  most  carefully 
studied,  viz.,  the  Indo-European  and  the  Semitic.  The 
language  of  the  New  Testament  belongs  to  the  former, 
that  of  the  Old  Testament  to  the  latter.  While  these 
two  leading  families  stand  thus  together,  possessing  a 
common  type  which  distinguishes  them  from  all  other 
families  of  tongues  and  places  them  at  the  summit  of 
all  forms  of  human  speech  as  respects  their  structure, 
they  differ  remarkably  from  one  another  in  various 
particulars. 

The  first  fundamental  diversity  is  that  Indo-Euro- 
pean tongues  form  and  inflect  their  words  by  means 
of  external  additions  to  the  root.  Semitic  tongues 
form  their  words  and  to  some  extent  inflect  them  by 


6  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

vowels  inserted  in  tlie  body  of  the  root  or  directly 
attached  to  it,  the  only  exception  being  that  of  pro- 
nominal prefixes  and  appendages.^  With  this  is  allied 
a  peculiar  constitution  of  the  roots  of  words  in  these 
two  families  respectively.  The  Indo-European  root  is 
a  syllable,  the  ultimate  unit  of  articulate  speech ;  this 
may  consist  of  a  vowel  alone,  or  of  a  vowel  with  one 
or  more  associated  consonants,  and  suffers  no  change  in 
any  of  its  combinations  except  as  the  laws  of  euphony 
may  interfere  to  modify  it,  the  vowel  of  the  root  being  as 
essential  and  inalienable  a  part  of  it  as  its  consonants. 
The  Semitic  root,  on  the  contrary,  consists  solely  of  con- 
sonants, which  constitute  the  skeleton  or  framework, 
and  by  the  addition  of  vowels  is  converted  into  a  word 
in  actual,  living  use.  The  consonants  of  a  word,  there- 
fore, determine  its  radical  signification,  while  the  vowels 
are  subsidiary,  suggesting  its  modifications  and  sub- 
ordinate shades  of  meaning.  The  consonants  are  fixed 
and  unchanging,  the  vowels  fluctuating  and  unstable, 
altering  with  every  derivative  and  every  grammatical 
form. 

Hence  a  remarkable  diversity  in  the  alphabets  of 
these  two  families  of  tongues.  The  Semitic  alphabet 
consists  of  consonants  exclusively;  the  vowels  form  no 
part  of  the  essential  structure  of  the  word.     And  the 

*  In  English  the  root  "  love"  has  as  its  derivatives  lover,  loving,  be- 
loved, loveable,  lovely,  loveliness,  unloveliness.  From  the  Latin  root 
"  am  "  of  the  same  sense  come  the  verb  amo,  the  noun  amor,  and  the 
further  derivatives  amator,  amatorius,  amasius,  amabilis,  amabilitas, 
amita,  amicus,  amicitia,  inimicus,  inimicitia.  In  Hebrew,  on  the  other 
hand,  from  the  root  ''gdlil"  are  derived  the  words  ^"15  gadhal  to  be 
great  or  large,  b'^T^  giddel  to  make  large,  bi~!jn  higdil  to  make  great, 
^"15  gadhel  growing  great,  bin|l  gadhol  great,  b"il  giddel  too  great,  5*75 
godhel  greatness,  nb^il  g'dhulld  magnificence,  b'''13i  gadhtl  tassel 
(threads  combined  into  a  body  of  some  size),  b'H^'Q  migdal  tower  (some- 
thing great  or  strong). 


THE   SEMITIC    FAMILY    OF   LANGUAGES  7 

modifications  of  its  meaning  are  sufficiently  suggested 
by  the  connection  in  which  it  stands.  But  Indo-European 
alphabets  include  vowels  as  well  as  consonants,  since 
both  are  equally  essential  in  determinitig  the  meaning. 

The  number  of  letters  in  an  Indo-Euroj)ean  root 
might  vary  from  one  to  six,  the  only  restriction  being 
that  they  must  be  compacted  into  a  single  syllable.  But 
the  fundamental  peculiarity  of  Semitic  inflection  natu- 
rally required  that  its  roots  should  consist  of  a  uniform 
number  of  consonants.  The  production  of  a  regular 
system  of  significant  forms  from  its  several  roots  by  the 
simple  addition  of  vowels  could  only  be  effected  if  its 
roots  were  themselves  of  one  invariable  pattern.  Bi- 
literal  roots  would  be  too  short  to  admit  of  the  needed 
variety  to  serve  for  the  various  classes  of  words  and 
forms.  Triliteral  roots  were  the  briefest  that  would 
answer  the  purpose,  and  hence  Semitic  roots  are  as  a 
rule  triliteral.  Even  those  which  appear  to  have  been 
originally  biliteral  are  enlarged  by  an  added  letter  to 
bring  them  up  to  the  customary  length.  And  those 
which  exceed  the  normal  number,  the  quadriliterals  and 
quinqueliterals,  are  later  formations. 

This  constitution  of  the  Semitic  root  made  it  very 
easy  for  the  verb  to  have  a  regular  and  pervading  system 
of  derivative  forms.  Thus  in  Hebrew  from  the  root  ktl 
are  formed  the  simple  active,  latal^  to  kill;  passive, 
niktal,  to  be  killed  :  the  intensive  active,  hittel^  to  mas- 
sacre ;  passive,  JoUfal,  to  be  massacred :  the  causative 
active,  hiktil,  to  cause  to  kill;  passive,  hohtal,  to  be 
caused  to  kill :  the  reflexive  active,  hithlcattel,  to  kill 
one's  self.  The  Indo-European  has  its  causatives,  fre- 
quentatives,  inceptives,  desideratives,  etc.,  formed  by 
significant  syllables  appended  to  the  root,  but  these 
have  no  such  prevalence  and  simplicity  of  structure  as 
the  Semitic  system. 


8  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

Another  difference  resulting  from  tlie  fundamental 
diversity  in  the  mode  of  word-formation  and  inflection 
is  the  comparative  richness  of  the  Indo-European  in 
forms  and  inflections  and  the  comparative  poverty  of 
the  Semitic.  The  possibility  of  multiplying  forms  by 
external  flexion  is  unlimited.  For  every  shade  of  mean- 
ing that  a  people  apprehend  and  desire  to  express,  some 
word  or  particle  can  be  found  to  convey  it,  and  by 
attaching  this  to  the  root  or  word  that  is  to  be  modified, 
a  new  inflexion  or  a  new  significant  form  will  be  created. 
But  the  possible  changes  of  vowels  within  the  compass 
of  three  consonants  necessarily  limits  the  number  of 
significant  forms  that  can  be  thus  produced.  Hence,  too, 
the  Indo-European  family  includes  a  considerable  num- 
ber of  principal  branches,  the  Celtic,  Germanic,  Italic, 
Slavonic,  Lithuanic,  Greek,  Iranian,  and  Indian,  each 
of  which  has  its  various  subdivisions.  The  Semitic  has 
but  four  main  branches  with  their  subordinate  varieties, 
the  Assyrian,  Aramean,  Hebrew,  and  Arabic,  and  these 
exhibit  no  greater  differences  than  the  languages  be- 
longing to  any  one  of  the  subdivisions  of  the  Indo- 
European  family,  e.  g.,  French,  Italian,  and  Spanish,  or 
English,  German,  and  Danish.  It  may  be  added  that 
compound  words  are  almost  unknown  in  Semitic,  while 
they  abound  in  Indo-European,  and  form  an  important 
part  of  the  riches  of  these  tongues. 

A  further  contrast  connected  with  that  radical  diver- 
sity which  has  thus  far  engaged  attention,  is  the  sta- 
tionary character  of  the  Semitic  tongues  and  the  mobil- 
ity of  the  Indo-European.  The  readiness  with  which 
new  forms  are  produced  as  old  ones  are  dropped  or  worn 
out,  keeps  the  latter  in  a  state  of  constant  flux.  There  is 
incessant  change  for  the  better  or  the  worse,  as  the  case 
may  be.  With  the  Semitic  tongues  it  is  different. 
Their  structure  does  not  admit  of  this  facility  for  in- 


THE   SEMITIC   FAMILY   OF   LANGUAGES  9 

definite  change.  There  is  little  of  that  attrition  of  con- 
sonants, that  wearing  out  of  the  beginning  or  end  of 
words  by  rapid  or  defective  or  repeated  utterance, 
which  is  one  of  its  most  fruitful  causes.  The  conso- 
nantal base  of  the  word  is  its  ultimate  root,  and  this 
cannot  be  abridged  without  violating  the  constant 
law  of  triliterals,  and  cannot  be  modified  materially 
without  destroying  its  identity  and  rendering  its  recog- 
nition difiicult  or  impossible.  This  diverse  character 
of  the  two  families  of  languages  both  grew  out  of  and 
reacted  upon  the  characters  of  the  races  by  which  they 
were  respectively  spoken.  The  Semite  abides  substan- 
tially unaltered  from  age  to  age.  Travellers  find  the 
same  dress,  the  same  manners,  habits,  and  modes  of  life 
in  Palestine  at  the  present  day  that  existed  in  the  days 
of  Abraham.  With  Europeans  there  is  constant  change ; 
fashions  in  dress  vary  from  season  to  season,  the  con- 
veniences and  comforts  of  life,  customs,  and  laws  un- 
dergo perpetual  alteration.  The  Semite  abides  on  the 
same  spot  on  which  he  was  born.  With  the  exception 
of  the  trading  colonies  of  the  Phoenicians  and  the  fanat- 
ical conquests  of  the  Saracens,  the  Semite  populations 
have  remained  fixed  in  the  same  territory  from  the 
dawn  of  history,  and  that  one  of  very  limited  extent. 
The  restless,  moving  Indo-European  population  has 
spread  itself  across  both  the  continents  of  Europe  and 
Asia,  occupying  a  broad  belt  of  territory  from  Great 
Britain  to  the  peninsula  of  Hindostan,  and  is  now  fill- 
ing the  new  continent  of  America  and  settling  on  the 
islands  of  the  ocean,  ever  the  same  energetic,  progres- 
sive race.  May  not  this  suggest  a  reason  why  the  Old 
Testament  was  given  to  a  Semitic  people,  a  steadfast 
adherence  to  what  was  delivered  being  the  chief  quality 
demanded  in  that  traditionary  dispensation  ?  But  when 
the  period  was  come  for  aggression,  for  breaking  over 


10  GENERAL  INTRODUCTION 

the  old  boundaries,  giving  up  ancient  usages,  and  carry- 
ing the  gospel  to  the  ends  of  the  earth,  the  work  Avas 
given  in  charge  to  Europeans. 

The  distinction  between  the  Semitic  and  the  Indo- 
European  tongues  thus  far  considered  has  relation  to 
the  outward  forms  of  words.  A  second  characteristic 
difference  respects  their  meaning  or  significant  con- 
tents. It  is  that  the  Semitic  languages  are,  so  to  speak, 
more  pictorial,  and  the  Indo-European  more  reflective. 
Words  expressive  of  abstract  ideas  and  of  spiritual  con- 
ceptions are  in  all  languages,  for  the  most  part,  based 
upon  roots  primarily  relating  to  external  objects  or  im- 
pressions made  upon  the  senses.  In  the  Indo-Euro- 
pean languages,  however,  the  origin  of  these  words  no 
longer  remains  in  the  popular  consciousness.  The 
metaphor  which  first  suggested  their  employment  is  lost 
sight  of  as  they  are  currently  used,  and  is  only  discov- 
erable by  a  careful  investigation  and  analysis,  or  his- 
torically tracing  them  back  to  their  origin.  When  a 
man  is  spoken  of  as  a  sincere  friend,  no  one  thinks  of 
the  figure  suggested  by  the  etymology  sine  cerd — pure 
honey  freed  from  wax.  And  tribulation  no  longer  car- 
ries the  thought  back  to  the  tribulum,,  or  threshing  in- 
strument, though  we  still  use,  semi-consciously,  at 
least,  the  kindred  image  of  harroiving  up  the  feelings. 
The  term  agony  is  used  without  recalling  the  desperate 
struggles  of  the  palaestra,  from  which  it  was  first  bor- 
rowed ;  and  insult  without  thinking  of  the  victor  leap- 
ing on  the  body  of  his  prostrate  foe.  Inculcate  does  not 
bring  before  the  mind  the  image  of  treading  in  the 
grain,  so  pressing  the  soil  upon  the  seeds  that  they 
shall  grow,  nor  implicate  the  folds  of  a  garment  in 
which  something  is  enclosed.  But  in  Semitic  words, 
the  original  metaphor  still  remains  as  palpable  in  many 
cases  as  it  was  to  those  who  first  made  use  of  them. 


THE  SEMITIC  FAMILY   OF  LANGUAGES  11 

The  terms  are  uot  only  proved  to  be  figurative  by  ety- 
mological research,  but  continue  so  in  the  conscious- 
ness of  all  who  speak  the  language ;  the  primary  sensu- 
ous signification  and  the  secondary  intellectual  or  spir- 
itual signification  co-exist  side  by  side.  Thus  anger  is 
variously  denominated,  e.g.,  q5<  from  excited  breathing, 
TMin  heat,  "jinn  burning,  n-^y  boiling,  T^n  breaking  asun- 
der with  violence,  D?!  roaring.  Patient  is  denoted  by 
D"'S5^  X)^  slow  breathing ;  impatient  D'^SSi  "i:£p  short  or 
quick  breathing.  Discouragement  or  despair  is  cp'Q 
or  Di^tt  melting  of  the  heart,  reins,  or  knees.  Desire  is 
i«Q^  thirst  or  qp3  growing  pale.  To  pardon  is  "IBS  to 
cover  or  nos  to  hide.  To  be  proud  is  ©xi  i^iyp  to  lift 
up  the  head,  UT\  to  be  of  lofty  stature,  or  "isapn  to 
vaunt  one's  strength.  Truth  is  mail:  that  which  is  firm, 
or  p  stable  ;  beautiful  "I'^S©  that  which  shines  ;  right  is 
"TiC^  straight ;  wrong  is  niS',  biy  or  b'nbns  curved  or 
crooked,  or  TDi<a  of  ill  odor.  To  form  12:?  or  to  create 
xni  is  to  cut  out  or  carve.  To  decide  anything  is  in 
to  cut  it  off.  The  essence  or  substance  of  anything  is 
023?  its  bone. 

Connected  with  this  quality  of  Semitic  speech  is  a 
lack  of  that  precision  and  definiteness  or  exactness  of 
expression  which  the  Indo-European  labors  to  attain. 
The  thought  is  simply  suggested  in  outline  or  in  sub- 
stance, and  it  is  left  to  the  intelligence  or  imagination 
of  the  hearer  to  fill  it  up  and  complete  it.  Vividness 
and  force  are  aimed  at  rather  than  minuteness  of  de- 
tail. The  Indo-European  seeks  to  express  his  meaning 
with  exactness,  and  leaves  less  to  be  supplied  by  the 
hearer.  Thus  while  the  Hebrew  has  but  two  tenses 
and  but  scanty  provision  for  the  different  modes  of 
action,  the  Greek  has  nine  tenses  and  an  ample  variety 
of  moods.  The  former  utters  his  sentences  in  succes- 
sion, but  without  concatenation  or  indicating  their  rela- 


12  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

tion  to  one  another.  For  the  most  part  they  are  simply 
strung  together  by  the  copulative  "and."  The  more 
logical  Indo-European  cannot  satisfactorily  express  his 
style  of  thinking  without  calling  to  his  aid  a  number  of 
particles  which  shall  distinctly  exhibit  the  relation  of 
clause  to  clause,  thus  enabling  him  to  build  up  his  long 
and  complicated  periods,  each  part  of  which  is  held  in 
its  due  relation  and  proper  subordination  by  the  appro- 
priate conjunction. 

Here  again  we  can  see  how  a  Semitic  language  was 
best  fitted  for  the  preliminary  revelation  of  the  Old 
Testament,  which  was  so  largely  figurative  and  symbolic 
in  its  character,  which  dealt  in  outlines  and  in  shadows. 
But  in  the  exactness  necessary  for  the  final  stage  of 
divine  revelation,  in  which  the  truth  was  no  longer  to 
be  set  forth  in  symbols  or  hid  under  a  veil,  but  in  which 
the  doctrines  of  religion  were  to  be  exhibited  with  great 
plainness  of  speech  and  in  their  final  form  and  set  in 
their  logical  relations  and  based  on  convincing  argu- 
ments, an  Indo-European  language  was  employed,  and 
the  mind  of  a  Paul,  who  was  not  only  trained  in  Jewish 
lore  but  thoroughly  educated  likewise  in  the  learning 
and  philosophy  of  the  Greeks. 

The  family  of  languages  kindred  to  the  Hebrew  has 
received  several  difi^erent  names.  Thus  Jerome  called 
them  the  oriental  languages  ;  but  in  our  more  extended 
knowledge  of  the  East  this  designation  has  ceased  to  be 
distinctive.  The  name  Syro-Arabian  has  been  pro- 
posed, formed  after  the  analogy  of  Indo-European  by 
combining  the  extreme  limits  of  the  territory  occupied 
by  this  family.  The  name  most  commonly  applied  to 
it,  however,  is  Shemitish,  or  in  its  Greek  form  Semitic, 
derived  from  the  name  of  the  patriarch  Shem,  the  son 
of  Noah.  Its  use  is  justified  by  the  fact  that  according 
to  Genesis  x.  the  principal  members  of  this  family  were 


THE  SEMITIC   FAMILY   OF  LANGUAGES  13 

descended  from  Shem.  The  Elamites,  liowever,  though 
sprung  from  Shem,  spoke  an  Indo-European  language  ; 
and  the  Canaanites  and  Phoenicians  spoke  a  Semitic 
tongue,  though  descended  from  Ham. 

The  proper  home  of  the  Semitic  family  embraces  all 
the  territory  between  the  Red  Sea  and  the  Mediterra- 
nean on  the  west  and  the  Persian  Gulf  and  the  Tigris  on 
the  east,  and  stretching  from  the  Taurus  Mountains  on 
the  north  to  the  extreme  south  of  the  Arabian  Peninsula. 
This  includes  Arabia,  Palestine,  Syria,  Mesopotamia,  and 
Babylonia.  Here  these  languages  have  existed  as  far 
back  as  they  can  be  traced.  They  exist  there  still.  From 
this  possession  they  have  never  been  driven,  though 
they  have  at  times  overrun  these  limits,  especially  as 
carried  by  Phoenician  commerce  and  Mohammedan  in- 
vasion. These  were  the  languages  of  the  great  empires 
that  were  anciently  founded  in  this  region,  or  at  least 
of  their  capitals,  the  mightiest  and  most  renowned  of 
the  ancient  world,  Babylon  and  Nineveh,  also  of  the 
great  commercial  metropolis  of  Tyre  together  with  her 
colonies.  Besides  being  the  languages  of  civilization 
and  of  trade  they  have  been  consecrated  as  the  lan- 
guages of  religion,  and  have  thus  wielded  a  still  more 
important  and  extensive  influence  upon  human  history 
and  the  destinies  of  mankind.  The  religion  of  Mo- 
hammed came  forth  from  Arabia ;  the  revelations  of  the 
Old  Testament  were  made  to  the  people  of  Israel ;  the 
divine  Founder  of  Christianity  lived  and  taught  in 
Palestine. 

The  four  principal  branches  of  the  Semitic  family 
are  the  Assyrian,  the  Aramean,  the  Hebrew,  and  the 
Arabic.  The  Assyrian  is  found  on  the  cuneiform  monu- 
ments. The  Aramean  includes  the  Jewish  Aramean, 
the  Christian  Aramean  or  Syriac,  the  dialect  of  the 
Samaritans,  and  some  other  minor  varieties.     With  the 


14  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

Hebrew  are  closely  allied  the  Phoenician  and  the  lan- 
guage of  the  Canaanites.  The  Arabic  is  closely  allied 
with  the  Ethiopic,  the  language  of  ancient  Abyssinia. 
Hebrew  occupies  an  intermediate  position  among  the 
main  divisions  of  the  family,  both  geographically  and 
philologically ;  the  Aramean  lay  to  the  north  and  east 
of  Palestine,  and  Arabia  is  on  the  south.  The  Arabic 
is  the  softest,  most  flexible,  and  most  copious ;  the 
Hebrew  next ;  the  Aramean  least.  The  historical  order 
in  which  they  appeared  and  flourished  is  Babylonish 
or  Assyrian,  Hebrew,  Aramean,  Arabic.  The  Assyrian 
was  the  language  of  an  extensive  literature  inscribed 
chiefly  on  clay  tablets,  which  have  only  lately  been  ex- 
humed and  deciphered.  Hebrew  literature  began  with 
Moses  ;  when  this  language  finally  ceased  to  be  spoken, 
it  was  absorbed  into  the  Aramean,  which,  in  its  turn, 
became  the  language  of  a  flourishing  literature,  both 
Jewish  and  Christian,  then  passed  into  decline  and  was 
itself  absorbed  into  the  Arabic,  which  is  now  the  sole 
living  representative  of  the  Semitic  family,  with  the  ex- 
ception of  some  trifling  remnants  of  other  branches 
spoken  by  inconsiderable  communities.  Though  the 
Arabic  is  the  most  recent  of  the  Semitic  literatures,  it 
must  not  be  inferred  from  this  that  the  language  is  the 
most  recent  in  its  origin  and  structure  of  the  Semitic 
tongues.  An  analysis  of  Arabic  forms  establishes  the 
surprising  fact  that  instead  of  being  the  latest  and 
most  modern  development,  it  is  really  in  some  re- 
spects the  most  primitive,  and  preserves  the  original 
forms  and  inflections  with  less  change  than  any  of  its 
sisters.  For  the  purpose  of  comparison  with  the 
Hebrew  the  Arabic  has  the  advantage  of  the  greatest 
copiousness  and  of  being  still  a  living  language.  The 
Aramean  seems  to  be  the  most  closely  related  to  the 
Hebrew.     The  Ethiopic  preserves  quite  a  number  of 


THE   SEMITIC   FAMILY    OF    LANGUAGES  h") 

{xnalogies  which  have  been  lost  in  other  tongues.  And 
much  may  be  hoped  from  the  Assyrian,  when  it  has 
been  more  fully  investigated,  particularly  in  aiding  to 
determine  the  primitive  meaning  of  obscure  Hebrew 
roots. 


in 

THE  HEBREW  LANGUAGE 

The  Hebrew  language  received  this  name  because  it 
was  spoken  by  the  Hebrew  people.  Two  different  ex- 
planations have  been  given  of  the  term  as  applied  to 
them.  One  that  it  is  derived  from  "112?  in  its  appellative 
sense  beyond,  as  in  the  phrase  ^T\)n  '^32?  beyond  the 
river ;  accordingly  ^'O.V  Uebreio  would  denote  one  be- 
longing to  the  region  beyond  the  Euphrates.  The 
word  first  occurs  in  Gen.  xiv.  13,  in  application  to 
Abram  who  had  recently  removed  to  Canaan  from  Ha- 
ran ;  it  is  there  rendered  Trepar?;?  in  the  LXX.  from 
irepav  beyond.  Others  derive  the  word  from  113?  as  a 
proper  name  Eher,  Gen.  xi.  14,  an  ancestor  of  Abram  of 
the  sixth  generation.  An  argument  is  drawn  from  Gen. 
X.  25,  where  it  is  stated  that  in  the  days  of  his  son  Peleg 
the  earth  was  divided  ;  this  is  understood  to  be  the  dis- 
persion consequent  upon  the  confusion  of  tongues  at 
Babel,  and  it  is  urged  that  if  Eber  was  the  head  of  a 
family  or  clan  at  that  important  juncture,  he  might  nat- 
urally have  given  name  to  his  descendants.  That  Eber 
is  without  the  aspirate  prefixed  to  Hebrew  is  due  to  the 
English  rendering;  there  is  no  such  difference  in  the 
original. 

Upon  either  of  these  etymologies  it  might  be  expected 
that  the  term  Hebrew  would  have  a  wide  signification  ; 
and  this  is  confirmed  by  Gen.  x.  21,  where  Shem  is 
called  the  father  of  all  the  children  of  Eber,  embracing 
a  number  of  affiliated  or  contiguous  populations,  and 

16 


THE   HEBREW    LANGUAGE  17 

Num.  xxiv.  24,  where  Eber  denotes  the  inhabitants  of 
the  region  east  of  the  Euphrates.  In  ordinary  usage, 
however,  the  term  Hebrew  is  restricted  to  the  Israelites. 
Although  Abram  is  called  a  Hebrew,  this  name  is  never 
given  to  his  descendants  by  Keturah,  nor  to  the  children 
of  Ishmael  nor  of  Esau.  Hebrew  is  the  name  by  which 
the  chosen  people  were  distinguished  from  other  nations, 
and  which  was  used  by  foreigners  in  speaking  of  them. 
Israel  was  their  domestic  name,  by  which  they  were 
characterized  as  the  people  of  God.  After  the  time  of 
David  the  name  Hebrew  almost  vanishes  out  of  the  Old 
Testament,  only  being  found  in  Jer.  xxxiv.  9,  14,  Jonah 
i.  9.  When  the  kingdom  was  divided,  Israel  came  to  be 
used  out  of  its  proper  theocratic  import,  and  to  denote 
the  ten  tribes  in  distinction  from  the  other  section  of 
the  people,  which  was  called  Judah  or  the  Jews.  In 
the  New  Testament  a  Jew  is  any  one  belonging  to  the 
Jewish  people,  a  Hebrew  is  one  who  resided  in  Pales- 
tine and  spoke  the  Hebrew  or  Aramean  language  ;  those 
who  spoke  Greek  were  called  Hellenists,  in  the  English 
version  Grecians  as  distinguished  from  Greeks. 

The  Hebrew  language  nowhere  receives  this  name  in 
the  Old  Testament.  It  is  there  called  the  Jews'  lan- 
guage, Isa.  xxxvi.  11 ;  also  the  language  of  Canaan,  Isa. 
xix.  18,  where  a  figurative  use  is  made  of  the  expression. 
The  first  application  of  the  name  Hebrew  to  a  language 
is  in  the  prologue  to  the  Book  of  Ecclesiasticus.  In  the 
New  Testament  and  in  Josephus  this  name  is  used  both 
of  the  Hebrew  proper,  Rev.  ix.  11,  and  of  the  Aramean, 
the  tongue  then  spoken  by  the  Hebrew  people,  John  v. 
2,  Acts  xxi.  40.  ^  Later  Jewish  writers  call  the  Hebrew 
as  the  language  of  the  sacred  books  'Hhe  holy  tongue," 

^  Philo,  De  Vita  Moysis,  I.  §  5,  speaks  of  the  law  as  written  in  the 
Chaldean  tongue ;  a  postscript  to  the  Book  of  Job  in  the  LXX.  says  that 
it  was  translated  from  the  Syriac. 
3 


18  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

in  distinction  from  the  Aramean  which  succeeded  it  as 
the  language  of  ordinary  intercourse  which  they  denom- 
inate "  the  profane  toDgue." 

The  Hebrew  bears  internal  evidence  of  having  been 
the  language  of  Palestine  in  the  fact  that  the  common 
word  for  "  west"  is  u'^  the  sea.  Some  have  suspected  in 
the  plural  D'^nb^  God  a  trace  of  polytheistic  usage,  and 
inferred  that  the  language  had  been  developed  among 
idolaters,  the  one  God  of  Abraham  taking  the  place  of 
the  gods  of  his  pagan  predecessors.  The  conjecture  is 
unfounded,  however,  for  this  plural  is  not  one  of  multi- 
plicity but  of  majesty,  and  is  to  be  explained  like  others 
of  the  same  description  which  occur  in  the  language. 

Bottcher  '  distinguishes  three  dialects  of  the  Hebrew, 
which  he  calls  respectively  that  of  Ephraim  in  the 
north,  that  of  Judah  in  the  middle  of  the  land,  and  that 
of  Simeon  in  the  south.  More  cautious  critics,  however, 
admit  that  we  have  not  the  data  to  decide  this  question 
with  any  degree  of  confidence.  The  existing  literatui'e 
furnishes  no  evidence  of  a  diversity  of  dialects,  but  at 
the  utmost  only  of  some  provincialisms  in  pronunciation 
or  in  the  use  of  words.  Thus  the  occuiTence  of  the 
abbreviated  relative  in  the  Song  of  Deborah,  Judg.  v.  7, 
and  even  in  some  prose  passages  of  the  Book  of  Judges, 
vi.  17,  vii.  12,  viii.  26,  has  been  plausibly  conjectured  to 
reflect  the  usage  of  the  northern  section  of  the  country. 
From  Judg.  xii.  6  it  appears  that  an  Ephraimite  could 
be  detected  by  his  utterance  of  the  sibilants  ;  they  said 
"sibboleth"  for  "shibboleth."  Judg.  xviii.  3  has  also 
been  appealed  to,  w^here  it  is  said  that  the  Danites 
knew  the  voice  of  the  young  man,  the  Levite.  This 
does  not  mean,  however,  that  they  discovered  him  to  be 
a  Levite  by  his  dialect  or  his  pronunciation,  but  that 
they  recognized  in  his  voice  that  of  an  acquaintance. 
In  Neh.  xiii.  24  it  is  said  after  the  return  from  the  cap- 

'  Ausfuhrliches  Lehrbuch,  §  29. 


THE   HEBREW   LANGUAGE  19 

tivity  that  the  intermarriages  of  the  people  with  sur- 
rounding nations  corrupted  their  language.  The  children 
of  those  Jews  that  had  married  wives  of  Ashdod,  of 
Ammon,  and  of  Moab  spake  half  in  the  speech  of 
Ashdod,  and  could  not  speak  in  the  Jews'  language,  but 
according  to  the  language  of  each  people.  There  is  no 
reason  to  suppose  that  this  laid  the  foundation  of  per- 
manent dialects  among  the  Jews  themselves,  but  it 
shows  that  these  surrounding  tribes  had  dialects  differ- 
ing both  from  one  another  and  from  the  Jews.  At  a 
later  period  when  the  Hebrew  had  jdelded  to  the  Ara- 
mean  as  the  language  of  Palestine,  Galileans  could  be 
detected  by  their  pronunciation.  Thus,  Mat.  xxvi.  73, 
a  bystander  singled  out  Peter  as  a  Galilean  from  amongst 
the  crowd  that  filled  the  high-priest's  palace,  saying  to 
him,  "  thy  speech  betrayeth  thee."  The  same  thing  is 
evident  from  statements  in  the  Talmud. 

The  differences  created  in  Hebrew  by  different  species 
of  composition  are  much  more  considerable  and  impor- 
tant. The  language  of  prose  and  that  of  poetry  differ 
among  all  people.  The  latter,  which  is  the  offspring  of 
an  elevated  and  unusual  style  of  thought  and  feeling, 
demands  a  corresponding  diction,  delights  in  what  is 
rare  and  unprosaic,  and  hence  abounds  in  unusual 
words  and  forms  of  speech  and  in  bold  grammatical 
constructions.  Thus  in  place  of  words  in  ordinary  use 
and  which  therefore  only  savor  of  the  commonplace,  it 
employs  others  not  found  in  prose.^     Thus  : 

nn^i<  I  =^'2'^   word.  byBmnTD:^  do. 

nbtt  )  bT\'(D  =  T^{ plant. 

ina      zzzlD^a^  man.  yyp^TVQnb'Q    war. 

t^^n      —Tan   declare.  b3i=rK*b  not. 

'  Bleek,  Einleitung,  pp.  92,  93 ;  Havernick,  Einleitung,  pp.  172-74. 


20  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

Or  words  are  used  in  new  senses,  thus  attributives 
instead  of  nouns  : 

rVBT}  (hot)  =z  W121D  sun.  D'^bti:  {Jlowing)  z=  streams. 

njnb  (white)  =z  nn^  moon.      "T^ns  {mighty)  z=  God. 

Or  unusual  forms  of  words  are  employed : 

niby;  for  D-^n'bs  God.  ?f*bn^  for  ^fb-^  fut.  of.  tybn  go, 

nitt*  for  D'^p^  days.  '^3'Q  for  I'D  from. 

mt  for  D'^ri^  2/^^^''^-  ''??^,  ''^?,  '*'!}?  ^o^^  ^?,  ^?,  "1?. 

D^'tl'a?  for  D^'ia?  nations.  ittS,  ilDS  for  3,  3. 

Or  peculiar  grammatical  forms : 

n  (as  fem.  ending)  for  n  ,    irri    )  ,    ra  \  t     ^^ 
I"!    (as  plural  ending)  lor  D^ .  ^ni  J  ^ 

yn  (suffix)  for  D.  itt'^..  (suffix)  for  on'^... 

'^p^_  (suffix)  for  1W, 

Or  peculiar  grammatical  constructions,  as  the  demon- 
strative nr,  ^T  instead  of  the  relative  npJ* ;  omission  of 
the  article  or  of  the  relative,  bold  ellipsis,  etc. 

Some  of  these  poetic  words  and  forms  have  been  de- 
nominated Arabisms  or  Aramseisms,  since  they  resem- 
ble those  in  current  use  in  Arabic  or  Aramean.  They 
are  not,  however,  on  that  account  to  be  regarded  as  di- 
rectly borrowed  from  one  or  other  of  those  cognate  lan- 
guages. The  true  explanation  in  most  instances  is  that 
they  belonged  to  that  common  stock  which  was  pos- 
sessed by  the  parent  language  of  this  family,  and  was 
transmitted  from  it  to  all  the  Semitic  tongues.  In  the 
Arabic  or  Aramean  they  may  have  been  retained  in 
familiar  use,  while  in  Hebrew  they  passed  into  com- 
parative disuse,  and  on  this  very  account  were  revived 
in  poetry. 

The  prophetic  style  occupies  an  intermediate  position 
between  poetry  and  prose ;  sometimes,  according  to  the 


THE  HEBREW   LANGUAGE 


21 


nature  of  the  subject  or  the  genius  of  the  author,  rising 
to  the  former,  sometimes  sinking  to  the  latter.  Isaiah 
is  almost  all  poetry,  Daniel  all  prose.  The  books  of 
Moses  may  be  said  to  have  led  the  way  m  every  de- 
partment of  literature,  as  well  as  to  have  set  the  stand- 
ard of  religion.  The  body  of  the  history  and  legislation 
is  in  prose,  pieces  of  poetry  occur  in  various  passages 
scattered  here  and  there,  and  the  oratorical  style  pre- 
vails in  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy. 

The   Hebrew,   moreover,   underwent  a  considerable 
change  between  the  beginning  and  the  end  of  the  Old 
Testament,  and  it  has  by  different  scholars  been  vari- 
ously distinguished  into  periods.     That  division  which 
is  most  obvious,  and  has  the  sanction  of  the  best  au- 
thorities, is  into  two  periods,  the  line  of  division  being 
shortly  before  the  Babylonish  exile.     From  the  time  of 
Moses  to  that  of  Isaiah  the  language  suffered  very  little 
change,  but  in  the  writings  of  Jeremiah  and  Zephaniah 
there  is  a  manifest  decline.     The  books  of  Daniel,  Es- 
ther, Ezra,  and  Nehemiah  form  a  striking  contrast  in 
point  of  purity  of  language  with  the  historical  books 
written  at  an  earlier  date.     The  books  of  Chronicles 
possess  the  characteristics  of  the  later  Hebrew  to  a 
greater  extent  than  the  Kings,  for  though  the  latter 
were  written  during  the  exile,  they  preserve  more  ex- 
actly the  language  of  the  older  writings  upon  which  they 
are  throughout  based.     Ezekiel  presents  the  greatest 
number  of  anomalies  and  foreign  forms.     He  lived  and 
labored  amongst  the  exiles,  and  probably  reflects  more 
exactly  than  any  other  writer  the  actual  deterioration 
which  had  taken  place  in  the  language  of  common  in- 
tercourse.    The  transition  which  was  going  forward  is 
also  shown  in  the  fact  that  Daniel  and  Ezra  are  written 
partly  in  Hebrew  and  partly  in  Aramean.    It  is  remark- 
able that  in  the  prophets  subsequent  to  the  exile.  Hag- 


22  GENEEAL   INTRODUCTION 

gai,  Zechariali,  and  Malachi,  the  language  is  less  in- 
fected with  AraniBoisms  and  exhibits  a  marked  return 
toward  the  purity  and  correctness  of  former  times.  This 
is  doubtless  due  to  their  study  and  imitation  of  earlier 
writers,  and  not  to  any  improvement  of  the  language  as 
popularly  spoken. 

The  deterioration  of  the  Hebrew  of  the  later  books 
of  the  Old  Testament  appears  in  the  introduction  of 
new  words  and  phrases  instead  of  those  previously  in 
use,  such  as  llDnii^'an  Dnb  shewbread  for  D'^DSn  DHb^ 
n^Db^  kingdom  for  HDb^l?,  "f^"^  fine  linen  for  tDO  ;  in  the 
more  frequent  use  of  the  vowel  letters  as  Tii'i  for  ^'I'l, 
tJhip  for  ©np,  n'^s  for  nb;  and  the  adoption  of  genuine 
Aramaeisms,  Aramean  words,  forms,  and  constructions, 
and  Aramean  senses  given  to  words  different  from  their 
meaning  in  earlier  writers.  These  are  to  be  distin- 
guished from  the  improper  Aramseisms  which  have 
been  before  spoken  of  as  occurring  in  poetry  of  an  ear- 
lier period,  which  resemble  Aramean  words  and  forms, 
but  have  not  been  directly  borrowed  from  Aramean 
speaking  people,  since  they  belong  to  that  primitive 
stock  inherited  by  Hebrew  in  common  with  other  Se- 
mitic tongues. 

The  stationary  character  of  the  language  during  its 
first  period  has  been  made  an  objection  to  the  high  an- 
tiquity of  the  Pentateuch.  It  is  alleged  to  be  incredi- 
ble that  the  Hebrew  should  undergo  so  little  change  in 
the  course  of  eight  centuries.  But  to  this  it  may  be 
replied : 

1.  It  is  characteristic  of  the  Semitic  languages  gener- 
ally, as  has  been  before  stated,  that  they  are  fixed  and 
stationary  to  an  extent  unknown  among  occidental 
tongues.  It  is  with  the  languages,  as  it  is  with  every- 
thing else  in  the  Orient — all  is  stereotyped  and  un- 
changing.    The  customs  and  habits  of  the  people  abide 


THE  HEBREW    LANGUAGE  23 

the  same  from  age  to  age,  and  are  at  this  day  substan- 
tially what  they  were  nineteen,  or  even  forty,  centmies 
ago.  The  popular  names  of  places  in  Palestine  are 
often  but  slightly  modified  from  the  names  in  use  in  the 
days  of  Abraham  and  of  Joshua,  even  though  foreign 
names  had  since  been  imposed  and  were  thought  to 
have  completely  taken  their  place.  The  Syriac  and  the 
Arabic  present  instances  of  permanence  similar  to  the 
Hebrew.  And  a  persistence  has  been  claimed  for  the 
Chinese  greatly  beyond  anything  that  is  affirmed  re- 
specting the  Hebrew. 

2.  The  circumstances  of  the  Israelites  during  this  pe- 
riod w^ere  such  as  to  favor  the  preservation  of  their  lan- 
guage. They  had  little  intercourse  with  other  nations, 
separation  from  them  being  in  fact  required  and  fur- 
thered by  their  law.  And  the  Canaanites  and  other 
contiguous  tribes  spoke  a  language  nearly  identical  with 
their  own. 

3.  The  books  of  Moses,  constituting  the  civil  and  re- 
ligious code  of  the  nation  and  the  basis  of  their  litera- 
ture, contributed  to  fix  the  language,  as  a  written  litera- 
ture always  does,  and  especially  a  sacred  literature,  as 
the  Koran  has  done  in  the  Arabic,  the  authorized  ver- 
sion of  the  Scriptures  in  English,  and  Luther's  trans- 
lation of  the  Bible  and  his  other  writings  in  German. 
And  as  a  model  of  good  writing  the  aijle  and  language 
of  the  Pentateuch  would  influence  subsequent  writers, 
even  thmigh  popular  usage  might  have  swerved  from  it. 
Thus  the  language  of  Homer  was  adopted  by  writers  of 
epics  long  after  his  time,  becoming  the  fixed  dialect  for 
that  species  of  composition ;  and  among  ourselves  in  re- 
ligious writings  the  style  of  the  version  of  the  Bible  is 
often,  consciously  or  unconsciously,  imitated. 

4.  Moreover,  the  Hebrew  was  not  altogether  station- 
ary during  this  long  period.     We  have  not  sufficient 


24  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

data  to  enable  us  to  trace  the  changes  in  the  language 
from  the  time  of  Moses  onward  with  entire  certainty 
and  precision.  A  far  more  extensive  literature  would 
be  required  to  determine  just  what  words  and  forms 
were  in  current  use  at  each  successive  epoch,  and  to 
point  out  with  accuracy  the  rise  of  new  words  and  the 
decay  of  old  ones.  The  non-appearance  of  particular 
words  and  forms  in  the  scant  remains  of  any  given  time 
do  not  afford  a  sure  criterion  of  their  non-existence. 
Nevertheless,  so  far  as  any  conclusion  can  be  drawn 
from  the  facts  within  reach,  they  appear  to  warrant  the 
belief  that  not  a  few  changes  in  ordinary  usage  took 
place  from  time  to  time.  Thus,  antique  expressions  oc- 
cur in  the  lives  of  the  patriarchs  which  seem  to  have 
been  obsolete  and  displaced  by  other  equivalents  in  the 
time  of  Moses.  Many  words,  forms,  and  phrases  are 
peculiar  to  the  Pentateuch,  and  either  never  occur  sub- 
sequently, or  are  only  rarely  found.  Some  vanish  en- 
tirely in  the  immediately  succeeding  period  and  are 
only  revived  again  in  the  latest  writings  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, where  they  appear  to  be  borrowed  or  adopted 
from  the  Pentateuch.  Again  there  are  words  and  ex- 
pressions which  Moses  uses  in  prose,  which  are  in  later 
times  only  found  in  poetry  or  recur  only  with  a  modi- 
fied signification  or  an  altered  form.^ 

When  Graf  and  Wellhausen  undertook  to  revolution- 
ize critical  opinion  in  respect  to  the  relative  dates  of  the 
so-called  documents  P,  J,  E,  and  D,  into  which  the 
critics  fancied  that  they  could  divide  the  Pentateuch, 
alleging  that  P,  which  had  previously  been  regarded  as 
the  earliest,  was  in  fact  the  latest,  and  was  produced 
either  in  or  after  the  Babylonish  exile,  one  of  the  lead- 

'  The  proof  of  each  of  these  statements  is  given  in  extenso  in  Keil'e 
Einleitung  des  Alten  Testaments,  3d  Edition,  pp.  43-48.  See  alsr 
Hiivernick's  Einleitung,  I.,  i.,  pp.  183-96. 


THE   HEBREW   LANGUAGE  25 

ing  considerations  urged  in  opposition  to  this  new  hy- 
pothesis was  "  the  marked  contrast  between  the  general 
character  of  the  language  of  the  so-called  primal  docu- 
ment and  that  of  the  exilic  and  postexilic  writings."^ 
Wellhausen^*  sought  to  neutralize  this  argument  by 
claiming  that  certain  words  in  P  had  Aramaic  forms 
and  significations,  and  were,  therefore,  indicative  of  late 
date.  Giesebrecht^  subsequently  made  an  elaborate 
attempt  to  show  that  the  language  of  P  contains  indica- 

'  Riehm  in  Studien  und  Kritiken  for  1872,  p.  287.  He  goes  on  to 
say  :  "  The  antique  coloring  of  the  language  of  the  Pentateuch  in  re- 
spect to  the  grammar  and  the  lexicon  is  most  conspicuous  in  the  sec- 
tions belonging  to  P.  Many  expressions  peculiar  to  it  we  do  indeed 
find  again  in  Ezekiel  and  in  the  latest  writings,  as  Chronicles,  Ezra, 
Nehemiah,  and  even  Daniel.  But  whoever  considers  tlie  distance  in 
other  respects  between  the  character  of  the  language  in  the  two  cases 
will  only  be  able  to  look  upon  such  expressions  in  the  exilic  and  post- 
exilic  writings  as  resulting  from  the  familiarity  of  the  writers  in  ques- 
tion with  the  Pentateuch,  and  in  part  also  as  actual  archaisms,  which  in 
many  individual  cases  can  easily  be  shown." 

"^  Bleek's  Einleitung,  4te  Auflage  bearbeitet  von  J.  Wellhausen,  p. 
174.  On  the  other  hand,  Ryssel,  De  Elohistae  Pentateuchi  Sermone, 
1878,  after  an  extended  examination  into  the  words  and  forms  that  occur 
in  those  sections  of  the  Pentateuch  which  the  critics  assign  to  P, 
reaches  the  following  conclusions,  p.  82,  that  P  does  not,  either  in 
whole  or  in  part,  belong  after  the  exile,  that  the  largest  and  most 
important  parts  of  P,  embracing  its  history  and  principal  laws,  are 
to  be  referred  to  the  origins  of  Israel's  literature,  but  that  certain  laws 
relating  to  the  duties  of  priests  and  Levites  are  to  be  referred  to  a 
later  time  when  the  Aramean  began  to  affect  Hebrew  speech.  The 
admission  here  made  that  there  are  Aramean  forms  implying  a  later 
date  of  some  portions  of  P,  is  shown  by  Dr.  Driver,  Journal  of  Phi- 
lology, 1882,  pp  204-207,  to  be  unwarranted  in  even  a  single  instance. 
He  very  justly  characterizes  the  work  of  Ryssel  as  a  whole  in  the 
following  terms,  p  202  :  ''  The  treatise  is  written  in  a  spirit  of  great 
fairness,  and  is  suggestive  and  valuable  throughout  ;  it  errs  only  by 
making  some  concessions  which  do  not  appear  to  be  needed,  and  by 
sometimes  not  being  exhaustive,  where  it  would  have  been  an  advantage 
to  be  so." 

^  Der  Sprachgebrauch  des  Heiateuchisclien  Elohisten,  in  Zeitschrift 
fur  die  A.  T.  Wissenschaft,  1881,  pp.  177-27G. 


26  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

tions  of  belonging  to  a  period  later  than  the  reign  of 
King  Josiah.  He  adduces  more  than  one  hundred 
words  peculiar  to  this  so-called  document,  which  rarely 
or  never  occur  in  the  earlier  books  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, and  are  found  only  or  chiefly  in  the  century  be- 
fore the  exile,  during  the  exile,  and  after  it,  and  with 
increasing  frequency  in  proportion  as  the  books  with 
which  it  is  brought  into  comparison  are  later  in  date. 
Several  of  these  words  are  alleged  to  be  Aramean,  and 
therefore  of  late  origin ;  others  are  classed  as  contem- 
poraneous with  the  books  in  which  they  are  oftenest 
found.  The  argument  seems  plausible,  and  the  conclu- 
sion a  natural  one  at  first  view.  Nevertheless,  when  ex- 
amined, the  argument  is  seriously  defective,  and  does 
not  warrant  the  conclusion  drawn  from  it.  Giesebrecht 
himself  admits  the  general  correctness  of  P's  language 
and  its  freedom  from  evident  Aramaeisms,  and  under- 
takes to  account  for  it  by  its  dependence  on  earlier 
writers,  p.  181.  Again  he  says,  p.  269  :  "  One  might  be 
surprised  that  there  are  not  more  traces  of  the  silver 
period  of  literature.  .  .  .  But  the  Elohist  was  a 
learned  man,  knew  the  older  literature  accurately,  and 
certainly  laid  stress,  as  Nehemiah  did,  ch.  xiii.,  upon 
pure  Hebrew.  That  he  keeps  free  from  clearly  Ara- 
maic forms  of  expression  can  consequently  not  excite 
surprise."  ^ 

'  Ewald,  who  is  the  highest  authority  on  all  matters  pertaining  to  the 
structure  of  the  Hebrew  language,  refers  to  sections  assigned  by  the 
critics  to  P  as  one  of  the  best  specimens  of  pure  Hebrew.  He  says  : 
"  The  language  seems  to  have  suffered  little  change  from  Moses  till 
about  600  B.C.,  less  (as  we  may  suppose)  because  the  structure  of  the 
Semitic  tongues  is  in  general  simpler,  and  on  that  account  less  liable 
to  change,  and  more  fixed  than  those  of  greater  richness  in  forms, 
e.g.^  the  Sanscritic,  appear  to  be,  and  moreover  because  in  that  period 
the  Hebrews  did  not  experience  those  fortunes  which  can  seriously 
alter  a  language  in  a  short  time.  They  were  then  never  long  in  subjec- 
tion to  peoples  of  a  foreign  tongue,  and  lived  under  their  own  free  con- 


THE   HEBREW   LANGUAGE  27 

Dr.  Driver  ^  subjected  Giesebrecht's  argument  to  a 
searching  examination,  and  points  out  its  numerous  fal- 
lacies. 1.  Words  are  classed  as  Aramaeisms  which  may 
not  even  be  really  Aramean,  being  rare  in  the  Targums, 
where  they  are  probably  adopted  from  the  Hebrew,  and 
either  not  occurring  in  Syriac  or  used  in  a  different 
sense ;  or  which  are  not  peculiar  to  Aramean  but  are 
found  likewise  in  Arabic,  and  are  thus  shown  to  belong 
to  the  old  Semitic  stock,  which  has  descended  alike  to 
the  different  branches  of  this  family.  A  word  is  not 
necessarily  an  Aramseism  because  it  has  its  analogue  in 
Aramean.  And  it  may  be  a  genuine  Hebrew  word,  even 
though  its  root  is  either  disused  or  has  changed  its 
meaning  in  that  language,  and  is  only  found  in  its  origi- 
nal sense  in  one  of  the  kindred  dialects.  2.  That  certain 
words  do  not  occur  in  writers  who  had  no  occasion  to  use 
them  has  no  significance.  Many  of  the  words  adduced  by 
Giesebrecht  express  specific  ideas,  which  are  seldom  or 
never  required  in  the  historical  books  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. There  are,  it  is  true,  coincidences  of  phraseology 
between  P  and  late  writers  from  600  to  400  B.C.,  but  when 
the  individual  cases  are  examined  they  admit  of  other 

stitution  separated  from  other  peoples,  especially  from  all  of  foreign 
languages.  Their  language  was,  therefore,  then  not  much  developed 
in  its  exterior,  but  also  not  corrupted.  Yet  in  the  oldest  pieces  of  the 
Pentateuch  and  of  other  books  some  considerable  peculiarities  show 
themselves  which  were  subsequently  lost ;  and  many  differences  of  this 
sort  have  only  become  unrecognizable  for  us  because  the  vocalization 
subsequently  introduced  treated  all  words  uniformly  according  to  the 
usage  of  later  times.  ...  A  certain  antique  heaviness  and  stiff- 
ness is  shown  indeed  in  several  of  the  oldest  songs,  as  Gen.  iv  23  f., 
xlix.  22-20,  Ex.  xv.,  Judg.  v.  ;  but  to  what  pliant  clearness  and 
charming  loveliness  this  oldest  and  simplest  language  can  shape  itself 
even  in  bare  narrative  we  see  in  the  shining  example  of  the  writing 
which  I  call  the  Book  of  Origins,"  the  same  that  other  critics  regard  as 
the  historical  portion  of  P.  — Ausfuhrl.  Lehrb.,  8te  Ausg.,  pp.  23,  24. 

'  On  some  alleged  Linguistic  Affinities  of  the  Elohist,  in  the  Journal 
of  Philology  for  1882,  pp.  201-36. 


28  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

explanations  than  coincidence  of  date.  Passages  cited 
from  an  earlier  by  a  later  writer  do  not  prove  them  to 
be  contemporaries.  Documents  of  the  later  periods 
are  more  copious  than  those  of  earlier  date,  so  that  a 
false  impression  is  produced  by  comparing  the  num- 
ber of  coincidences ;  this  is  further  aggravated  by 
classing  books,  whose  date  is  disputed,  as  post-exilic. 
The  objects  and  ideas  dealt  with  in  the  sections  as- 
signed to  P  differ  from  the  scenes  of  domestic  life  and 
national  history  which  are  the  staple  of  those  sections 
which  are  attributed  to  J ;  hence  the  difference  in  the 
words  peculiar  to  each.^  Even  J,  however,  whose  early 
date  is  acknowledged,  is  sometimes  technical,  and  then 
he  too  uses  words  which  are  found  nowhere  else  except 
in  writings  of  late  date,  of  which  Dr.  Driver  gives  several 
examples  ;  and  he  further  shows  that  other  pieces  of  ac- 
knowledged antiquity  might  by  this  species  of  reason- 
ing be  similarly  proved  to  be  of  late  origin.  3.  In  many 
instances  the  words  under  discussion  are  the  only  ones 
to  express  the  idea  intended.  The  argument,  if  valid, 
implies  that  these  words  had  no  place  in  the  language 
until  Jeremiah  or  after  his  time.  For  if  they  did  exist 
previously,  P's  employment  of  them  is  no  evidence  of 
his  late  date.  No  proof  is  offered  of  their  late  origin  ; 
and  some  of  them  express  ideas  that  the  Hebrews  must 
have  had,  and  the  words  which  are  supposed  during  the 
early  period  to  have  supplied  their  place  are  not  really 

'  Hence,  too,  the  non-occurrence  of  any  of  these  words  in  the  rest  of 
the  Pentateuch  and  Joshua  necessarily  results  from  the  principle  upon 
which  the  division  into  the  so-called  documents  is  effected.  Conse- 
quently all  that  is  left  of  writings  belonging  to  what  is  classed  as  the 
earlier  period  (i.e.,  before  700  b.c.)  is  what  the  critic  is  pleased  to  con- 
sider genuine  in  Hosea,  Amos,  Micah,  and  Isaiah,  together  with  a  few 
scraps  from  Judges  and  Samuel.  And  these  are  just  the  books  which 
characteristically  have  the  fewest  allusions  to  antecedent  writings,  and 
manifest  the  least  dependence  upon  them. 


THE  HEBREW    LANGUAGE  29 

synonymous.  4.  The  period  of  the  greatest  currency  of 
words  is  inferred  from  an  enumeration  of  the  instances 
in  which  they  are  found  in  different  writers,  regardless 
of  the  reasons  which  account  for  their  presence  or 
absence.  A  particularly  gross  instance  of  this  is  that 
W^yQ  is  tabulated  as  occurring  forty-six  times  in  Chroni- 
cles when  forty-two  of  these  are  found  in  one  brief  pas- 
sage, 1  Chron.  vi.  40-66  (A.  V.,  55-81),  which  is  simply 
transcribed  from  Josh.  xxi. 

The  attempt  to  prove  on  linguistic  grounds  that  what 
is  attributed  by  the  critics  to  P  is  of  later  origin  than 
the  rest  of  the  Pentateuch  is  not  successful.  It  is  not 
only  at  variance  with  the  general  character  of  the  lan- 
guage of  these  sections,  which  deservedly  ranks  with 
the  purest  and  best  specimens  of  Hebrew  that  have  been 
preserved  to  us,  but  the  hinges  on  which  the  argument 
turns  have  been  shown  to  be  utterly  invalid.  The  al- 
leged Aramaeisms  have  no  existence ;  and  the  absence 
of  certain  words  from  early  writings  and  their  appear- 
ance in  those  that  are  later  can  be  satisfactorily  ex- 
plained without  prejudice  to  the  antiquity  of  the  sections 
in  question.^      Giesebrecht  himself  does  not  think  that 

'  Dillmann,  whose  critical  prepossessions  are  well  known,  speaks  of 
the  language  of  the  so-called  P  sections  in  the  following  manner  in  his 
discussion  on  the  composition  of  the  Hexateuch  at  the  close  of  his 
Commentary,  pp.  663-65  :  "  Great  exertions  have  indeed  been  made 
to  prove  it  to  be  the  language  of  a  late,  post-exilic  writer ;  but  even 
Kuenen  has  judged  somewhat  more  considerately  of  it.  The  differ- 
ence between  it  and  the  language  of  the  poets,  orators,  and  historians 
of  the  middle  period  of  the  kings,  and  even  that  of  Deuteronomy,  is 
undeniable.  ...  Its  style  certainly  is  circumstantially  diffuse, 
juristically  precise  and  formal,  always  repeating  certain  phrases,  forms 
of  speech,  and  expressions  (among  them  many  technical  words  which 
were  current  only  with  the  professional  and  expert),  but  by  its  measured 
earnestness  impressive,  sometimes  in  a  high  degree.  The  circumstan- 
tiality of  the  discourse  aims  at  accuracy  and  clearness,  to  wliich  he 
was  accustomed  as  one  skilled  in  law.  He  speaks  of  all  things  pertain- 
ing to  the  sacred  service  as  a  jmest,  not  with  general  (as  laymen)  but 


30  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

the  argument  from  language  can  determine  the  date  of 
any  production  apart  from  other  considerations.  He 
says,  p.  182  :  "  In  the  paucity  of  Old  Testament  litera- 
ture, in  the  largely  uncertain  dating  of  a  large  num- 
ber of  particular  writings,  a  series  of  plain  linguistic 
phenomena  must  coincide  with  material  grounds  of  criti- 
cism to  enable  us  to  assign  a  writing  with  definiteness 
to  a  period  sharply  limited  at  the  beginning  and  the 
end."  The  date  of  this  as  well  as  of  other  portions  of 
the  Pentateuch  must  be  settled  on  other  grounds  than 
those  of  language. 

No  adequate  data  remain  for  estimating  the  copious- 
ness of  the  Hebrew  language.  The  number  of  words 
in  the  originals  of  the  Old  Testament  has  been  esti- 
mated at  5,642,  and  the  number  of  roots  at  about  five 
hundred.     These,  however,  are  found  in  a  single  volume 

with  the  more  definite  expressions.  .  .  .  One  cannot  see  why  such 
expressions  must  be  recent.  We  have  no  right  to  assume  tliat  they 
were  still  too  dull  and  uncultivated  in  the  time  of  the  kings  to  make 
such  distinctions  in  ideas  and  words.  Their  late  character  cannot  be 
inferred  from  the  fact  that  many  of  these  expressions  occur  again  only 
in  later  writers.  Those  of  later  time,  to  whom  this  priestly  document 
had  the  force  of  law,  and  by  whom  it  was  much  read,  naturally  drew 
from  it  and  formed  their  language  upon  it.  Aramean  words,  which 
Giesebrecht  accords  to  it  bountifully,  are  not  found  in  it.  That  the 
Hebrews  did  not  first  borrow  their  terms  for  '  breast,'  '  spin,'  and 
the  like  from  the  Arameans  after  the  exile,  may  be  regarded  as  self- 
evident.  There  are  also  no  words,  forms,  or  expressions  of  the  later 
Hebrew.  .  .  .  Syntactically  the  language  of  P  is  entirely  faultless. 
None  of  the  signs  that  appear  elsewhere  of  a  declining  Hebrew,  such 
as  are  found  in  Jeremiah,  are  discoverable  in  P,  and  nothing  of  the  in- 
correctness and  Aramaeisms  of  the  post-exilic  books.  ...  On  the 
other  hand  one  observes  in  P  much  that  is  decidedly  antique."  Each 
of  these  particulars  stated  by  Dillmann  is  abundantly  illustrated  by 
examples. 

For  a  detailed  examination  of  the  argument  for  a  late  date  derived 
from  P's  use  of  "^.yi  as  the  pronoun  of  the  first  person  (instead  of 
'^DDiJI),  and  of  T'bin  beget  (instead  of  1^^),  see  the  end  of  this  chapter, 
p.  47,  et  seq. 


THE   HEBREW   LANGUAGE  31 

of  moderate  compass,  and  cannot  be  supposed  to  com- 
prise anything  like  the  entire  vocabulary  of  the  Hebrew 
as  spoken.  What  proportion  the  words  which  have 
been  lost  bear  to  those  which  are  preserved  there  are 
no  means  of  determining  even  approximately.  Schul- 
tens,  a  distinguished  Orientalist  of  the  eighteenth  cen- 
tury, undertook  to  ascertain  by  an  arithmetical  compu- 
tation the  number  of  triliteral  roots  which  could  be 
formed  by  variously  combining  the  letters  of  the  He- 
brew alphabet.  As  the  result  of  the  process  he  inferred 
that  the  Hebrew  had  once  possessed  12,000  triliteral 
roots,  to  each  of  which  he  assigned  on  the  average  thirty 
derivatives,  making  a  grand  total  of  360,000  words  with- 
out reckoning  the  quadriliterals  and  their  derivatives. 
The  fallacy  of  this  method  is  obvious.  The  number  of 
vocables  in  actual  use  in  any  language  is  not  regulated 
by  the  possible  combinations  of  its  elementary  sounds. 
And  the  result  reached  by  Schultens  is  out  of  all  pro- 
portion to  the  probabilities  of  the  case.  The  stock  of 
words  in  any  language  will  not  go  beyond  the  necessi- 
ties of  the  people  employing  it.  It  will  not  contain 
names  for  objects  of  which  they  know  nothing,  or  for 
ideas  which  they  have  never  had,  and  hence  had  no 
occasion  to  express.  A  simple  agricultural  people  like 
the  Hebrews,  leading  a  uniform  life,  having  little  inter- 
course with  foreign  nations,  and  but  little  knowledge 
of  the  world  outside  of  their  own  limited  territor}^  would 
naturally  have  a  less  extensive  circle  of  ideas,  and  re- 
quire a  less  copious  language  for  their  expression. 

And  yet  within  the  range  of  their  ideas  the  language 
shows  in  some  directions  at  least  a  remarkable  richness 
in  terms,  an  affluence  even  of  synonyms.  Thus  there 
are  eight  terms  denoting  darkness  of  various  grades  or 
variously  conceived ;  there  are  seven  or  eight  names  for 
the  lion  of  different  species  or  different  ages  ;  four  names 


32  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

for  the  ox ;  eleven  for  rain  of  different  sorts  or  various 
intensity ;  eighteen  words  meaning  to  break  different 
materials  or  in  different  ways  ;  ten  for  the  act  of  seek- 
ing, and  nine  for  the  act  of  dying.^  These  and  other 
instances  of  like  description  indicate  a  careful  observa- 
tion of  natural  objects  and  a  nicety  in  drawing  distinc- 
tions between  them  which  is  quite  remarkable.  The 
multiplication  of  synonyms  was  also  favored  by  the  par- 
allelisms of  poetry,  which  gave  frequent  occasion  to 
employ  them.  As  might  be  supposed,  the  Hebrew  of 
the  Old  Testament  is  richest  in  words  connected  with 
religion.  Thus  it  has  been  estimated  that  there  are 
fourteen  expressions  for  confidence  in  God,  nine  for 
forgiveness  of  sins,  and  twenty-five  for  observance  of  the 
law.  And  Psalm  cxix.  contains  a  great  variety  of  ex- 
pressions for  the  law,  the  praises  of  which  are  uttered 
in  almost  every  verse. 

The  structure  of  the  Hebrew  is,  moreover,  such  as  to 
favor  an  economy  both  of  roots  and  words,  and  to  make  a 
small  number  of  each  perform  a  large  amount  of  service. 
Thus  the  paucity  of  adjectives  is  compensated  by  em- 
ploying abstract  nouns  to  supply  their  place.  The 
various  so-called  species  of  the  verbs  enabled  one  word 
to  express  by  its  different  forms  significations  which  in 
most  other  languages  would  be  denoted  by  different 
words.  Thus  to  learn  and  to  teach,  to  come  and  to 
bring,  to  go  and  to  lead,  to  eat  and  to  feed,  are  all  dis- 
tinct words  with  us ;  but  the  Hebrew  only  requires  one 
word  for  each  pair  of  terms,  the  alternate  members  of 
the  series  being  supplied  by  the  use  of  the  causative 
species.  And  when  to  this  is  added  the  extent  to 
which  the  radical  idea  can  be  modified  by  the  construc- 

'  Gesenius,  Geschichte  d.  heb.  Sprache  und  Schrift,  p.  48 ;  Renan, 
Histoire  des  Langues  Semitiques,  p.  129 ;  Havernick,  Einleitung,  I., 
i.,  p.  162  ff. 


THE   HEBREW   LANGUAGE  33 

tion  or  by  derivation  it  will  be  seen  how  much  this 
language  has  been  able  to  accomplish  with  a  very  mod- 
erate stock  of  roots.  Thus  the  verb  nij"!  to  see  is  capa- 
ble of  expressing  in  various  connections  or  in  its  differ- 
ent forms  the  ideas  to  look,  enjoy  (see  good),  despise 
(look  down  upon),  take  care  of  (look  after),  provide 
(look  out  for),  experience  (see  death),  know,  appear, 
show  (cause  to  see) ;  and  from  the  same  root  have  sprung 
nouns  signifying  prophet,  vision,  mirror,  appearance. 
And  other  roots  are  equally  or  more  prolific. 

Some  of  the  lost  roots  of  the  Hebrew  have  left  their 
traces  in  proper  names,  which  were  originally  no  doubt 
significant,  but  which  are  now  explicable,  if  at  all,  only 
from  the  cognate  languages.  Many  words  first  found 
in  later  Jewish  writings  doubtless  belonged  to  the  prim- 
itive stock  of  the  language,  but  did  not  chance  to  occur 
in  the  course  of  the  Old  Testament.  The  numerous 
awa^  \€y6/jL€va,  or  words  preserved  by  the  fortunate  cir- 
cumstance that  they  occur  in  a  single  instance,  suggests 
the  probability  that  a  far  greater  number  are  hopelessly 
lost,  because  not  even  the  single  occasion  for  their  em- 
ployment occurred  which  would  have  rescued  them  from 
destruction.  ♦ 

In  its  relation  to  other  Semitic  tongues  the  genera^ 
fact  appears  to  be  that  the  Arabic  has  most  frequently 
preserved  the  primitive  grammatical  forms  with  least 
change,  but  the  Hebrew  has  in  many  cases  adhered  most 
strictly  to  the  primary  meanings  of  words.  Thus  the 
system  of  verbal  species  in  Arabic  has  a  primitive  sim- 
plicity and  regularity  which  it  has  lost  in  Hebrew,  and 
which  has  still  further  disappeared  in  Aramean ;  the 
peculiar  and  apparently  irregular  forms  which  in  these 
languages  occur  only  in  the  weak  verbs  as  substitutes 
for  the  more  ordinary  and  regular  formations,  are  when 
traced  back  to  the  Arabic  found  to  be  relics  of  inde- 
3 


34  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

pendent  species,  with  distinct  significations  of  their  own, 
each  fitting  into  its  place  in  a  complete  and  harmonious 
series.  Many  of  the  personal  inflections  of  the  verbs 
and  formations  of  the  nouns,  as  well  as  plural  endings 
and  paragogic  letters,  first  find  their  satisfactory  expla- 
nation and  are  redeemed  from  their  apparent  isolation 
and  seemingly  anomalous  character  by  the  Arabic,  which 
exhibits  them  in  their  genuine  formation  and  their  true 
original  connection. 

On  the  other  hand  the  primitive  signification  of 
words  is  not  infrequently  retained  in  Hebrew,  when 
in  the  cognate  tongues  it  has  given  place  to  some  de- 
rived and  secondary  sense.  Thus  m  in  Hebrew  is  the 
interrogative  what?  though  sometimes  used  in  such 
connections  as  to  suggest  a  negative  or  be  almost  equiv- 
alent to  one  {e.g.,  what  is  it  to  you?  meaning  it  is 
nothing  to  you)  ;  in  Arabic  and  Syriac  it  has  become 
a  negative  adverb,  not.  nni^  in  Hebrew  to  untie,  in 
Aramean  to  dwell,  untying  or  loosing  the  beasts  of 
burden  at  the  end  of  a  journey  suggesting  the  idea 
of  lodging,  and  this  of  dwelling  or  inhabiting,  nyn 
in  Hebrew  has  its  primary  sense  of  wandering  or  er- 
ring;  in  Aramean  and  Arabic  it  means  to  he  idola- 
trous or  heretical,  nj©  in  Hebrew  to  change  (in  the 
phrase  itt?!?  npffi  to  change  his  understanding,  to  lose 
his  reason) ;  in  Syriac  the  verb  alone  means  to  he  de- 
ranged, -jbri  in  Hebrew  to  go,  occasionally  used  in  the 
sense  of  going  away,  vanishing  or  perishing,  which 
last  is  its  ordinary  meaning  in  Arabic,  nttij  in  Hebrew 
to  say  means  in  Arabic  to  coinmand,  to  say  authorita- 
tively and  imperatively,  whence  Emir  is  a  commander. 
"iSS  in  Hebrew  to  cover  ;  it  is  used  by  the  Eabbins  in 
the  sense  of  covering  up  or  denying,  and  means  in  Ara- 
bic to  deny  the  true  religion,  to  disbelieve,  whence  the 
Kaffir  tribes  are  so  called  because  they  are  unbelievers 


THE  HEBREW   LANGUAGE  35 

and  have  not  embraced  the  religion  of  Mohammed. 
i^np  in  Hebrew  to  call^  in  Arabic  to  utter  what  is  writ- 
ten, to  read,  hence  Koran,  that  which  should  be  read. 
Sometimes,  however,  this  relation  is  reversed,  and  the 
derived  sense  is  found  in  Hebrew,  when  one  or  more  of 
the  cognate  tongues  have  preserved  the  primary  signifi- 
cation. Thus  tlf.'on  in  Hebrew  to  sin  is  based  on  the 
conception  of  making  a  mistake,  which  is  the  meaning 
of  the  word  in  Arabic,  or  missing  the  mark  as  it  is  in 
Ethiopic. 

It  is  an  interesting  fact  that  words  expressive  of 
religious  acts  and  objects,  which  have  been  borrowed 
from  the  kindred  dialects,  are  in  Hebrew  mostly  ap- 
plied to  objects  connected  with  idolatry,  since  the  na- 
tions speaking  those  tongues  were  idolaters.  Thus  n^O 
in  Syriac  and  Arabic  is  the  common  word  for  worship , 
in  Hebrew  it  denotes  the  worship  of  an  idol.  ?|]ES  in 
Syriac  to  supplicate,  in  Hebrew  to  use  enchantment. 
a"''i^3  in  ^jx\2iC  priests,  in  Hebrew  priests  in  the  service 
of  idols.  ©IJ  in  Syriac  holy,  in  Hebrew  addicted  to 
the  impure  rites  of  heathen  worship.  DDp  in  Syriac  to 
prophesy,  is  in  Hebrew  applied  exclusively  to  soothsay- 
ing} 

The  Hebrew  contains  a  few  words  which  are  not  of 
Semitic  extraction.  In  the  books  of  Moses,  as  might 
be  expected  from  the  circumstances  of  their  origin,  are 
found  some  words  borrowed  from  the  Egyptian,  mostly 
the  names  of  Egyptian  objects,  persons,  or  places.  Thus 
ni^^  river  as  a  name  of  the  Nile  ;  iriif  the  reed  or  htd- 
rush  growing  on  its  banks;  nnn  ark;  O©  hyssus ; 
ephah  and  hin,  names  of  certain  dry  and  liquid  meas- 
ures ;  Pharaoh  and  Moses,  Zaphnath-Paaneah,  the  name 
given  to  Joseph  by  the  king  of  Egypt,  and  ?|'i3i?  the 

*  Gesenius,  Geschichte  d.  heb.  Sprache  und  Schrift,  p*  58;  Haver- 
nick,  Einleitung,  I.,  p.  165. 


36  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

proclamation  made  before  him  (E.  V.,  bow  the  knee),  are 
Egyptian  words. 

A  few  names  of  Indian  objects,  with  which  the  He- 
brews became  acquainted  through  the  medium  of  the 
Phoenicians,  bear  Sanscrit  names,  which  are  interesting 
as  proving  the  extent  to  which  Phoenician  navigators 
pushed  their  commerce  with  the  East  at  that  early  pe- 
riod. Thus  the  ivory,  apes,  peacocks,  and  almug  trees, 
1  Kings  X.  11,  22  (algum  trees,  2  Chron.  ix.  10),  brought 
by  the  trading  fleets  of  Solomon  and  Hiram  king  of 
Tyre,  and  perhaps  also  Ophir  from  which  they  brought 
them  bear  Sanscrit  names,  and  show  that  the  trade 
there  spoken  of  was  with  India.  So  also  the  nard  or 
spikenard  of  the  Song  of  Solomon,  as  well  as  the  aloes 
and  bdellium  of  the  books  of  Moses,  belong,  as  their 
names  declare,  to  this  same  Phoenician  trade  with  In- 
dia. The  0S"13  or  cotton  of  Esther  i.  6  is  also  a  San- 
scrit word,  and  testifies  that  this  product  was  in  the 
time  of  Ahasuerus  or  Xerxes  imported  into  Persia  from 
India. 

A  number  of  Persian  words  are  found,  chiefly  in  the 
books  of  Daniel,  Esther,  Chronicles,  Ezra,  and  Nehe- 
miah,  which  were  written  during  the  Persian  domina- 
tion, such  as  Satrap,  Tirshatha,  names  of  monarchs,  as 
Cyrus,  Darius,  Ahasuerus  (Xerxes),  Artaxerxes,  or  of 
other  persons,  as  Haman  and  his  sons ;  so  the  Persian 
coin  claries,  bit!"iS  crimson,  linTDD  letter,  applied  to  the 
official  missives  directed  by  or  to  the  Persian  monarchs 
(called  also  by  the  Assyrian  term  nn^X),  Djns  a  royal 
edict,  TD5  treasure,  inu  treasurer,  D'^pn'lS  nobles,  SSns 
dainties  ;  and  one  word  which  was  introduced  as  early 
as  the  time  of  Solomon,  D'HIS  a  park  or  pleasure  ground, 
the  same  as  the  Greek  TrapaSeto-o?. 

Three  names  of  musical  instruments  in  the  Book  of 
Daniel  are  borrowed  from  the  Greek,  which  are  readily 


THE  HEBREW   LANGUAGE  37 

accounted  for  by  what  is  known  of  Greek  adventurers 
penetrating  into  Asia  at  that  early  period  ;  'ji'^'lBii  Song 
of  Solomon,  iii.  9,  has  sometimes  been  compared  with 
the  Greek  (^opelov,  but  is  more  probably  derived  from 
the  Sanscrit,  and  is  possibly  even,  as  some  have  main- 
tained, of  Semitic  origin.  ^^^  the  equivalent  of  lonians 
is  the  name  by  which  the  Greeks  were  known  to  the 
Hebrews  from  the  earliest  period. 

Many  Semitic  words  passed  into  the  Greek,  and 
thence  again  to  most  of  the  languages  of  modern  Eu- 
rope. These  are  chiefly  the  names  of  objects  exported 
from  the  East  to  the  West,  and  afford  one  of  the  best 
indications  of  the  extent  and  variety  of  the  trade  carried 
on  by  the  Phoenicians  westward,  e.(/.,  balsam,  byssus, 
cane,  cassia,  cinnamon,  cummin,  cypress,  ebony,  hyssop, 
jasper,  myrrh,  nitre,  sapphire,  etc. ;  also  the  names  of 
the  Greek  letters  and  the  word  alphabet,  which  thus 
corroborate  the  tradition  of  the  Greeks  themselves,  that 
they  received  their  letters  from  Phoenicia.  The  spread 
of  Christianity,  which  is  based  on  the  Scriptures  of  the 
Old  Testament  as  well  as  the  New,  carried  with  it  into 
Western  tongues,  our  own  among  the  number,  several 
religious  terms  borrowed  from  the  Hebrew,  as  amen, 
cherub,  ephod,  hallelujah,  Jehovah,  jubilee,  Messiah, 
sabbath,  seraph,  urim  and  thummim,  not  to  speak  of 
Old  Testament  proper  names,  which  are  in  familiar  use 
among  us.  From  the  modern  Jews  such  words  have 
been  borrowed  as  abnet,  cabbala,  gemara,  mishna,  rabbi, 
sanhedrim  (through  Hebrew  from  the  Greek  avviSptov), 
talmud,  targum,  which  has  been  still  further  corrupted 
into  the  dragoman  or  interpreter  of  the  Levant. 

There  are  two  extreme  opinions  as  to  the  time  when 
the  Hebrew  finally  ceased  to  be  spoken.  One  is  that 
of  the  Talmud  and  Jewish  grammarians,  and  adopted 
by  some  modem  scholars,  that  it  was  entirely  displaced 


38  GENERAL  INTRODUCTION 

by  the  Aramean  during  the  Babylonish  exile.  The 
younger  generation,  who  grew  up  in  Chaldea,  it  is  as- 
sumed, adopted  the  language  of  the  Aramean-speaking 
people  around  them  and  knew  nothing  whatever  of  the 
Hebrew,  the  knowledge  of  which  was  confined  to  the 
old  men  who  had  acquired  it  in  Palestine  before  the 
exile  began  and  learned  men  who  gained  it  from  books. 
The  opposite  extreme,  which  has  been  broached  by 
some  modern  critics,  is  that  the  Hebrew,  though  cor- 
rupted in  the  exile,  continued  to  be  the  language  of  the 
people,  and  used  both  in  ordinary  intercourse  and  in 
writing  for  nearly  four  centuries  after  the  return  from 
exile  until  the  period  of  the  Syrian  domination  and  the 
time  of  the  Maccabees,  when  it  was  finally  supplanted 
by  the  Aramean.  The  advocates  of  this  opinion  are 
principally  influenced  by  their  unfounded  hypothesis 
that  some  of  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament  were 
written  at  this  late  period. 

A  captivity  of  but  seventy  years'  duration  is  too  brief 
a  period  for  an  entire  people  to  have  given  up  their  lan- 
guage and  adopted  another.  And  the  prophets  after 
the  exile  would  scarcely  have  written  in  Hebrew,  if  this 
were  not  intelligible  to  the  mass  of  the  people.  The 
common  language  must  still  have  been  Hebrew  after 
the  return,  though  greatly  deteriorated  and  far  from 
being  as  pure  as  that  which  is  found  in  the  books  of 
the  latest  prophets.  The  deterioration  and  assimilation 
to  the  Aramean  had  already  begun  before  the  exile. 
This  process  was  greatly  accelerated  by  that  event. 
The  Aramean  must  have  been  familiar  to  many  before 
the  Hebrew  was  displaced  by  it,  as  is  shown  by  the 
Aramean  passages  in  the  books  of  Daniel  and  Ezra. 
Hebrew  thus  received  its  death-blow,  from  which  it 
was  impossible  for  it  to  recover.  And  it  shortly  and 
rapidly  passed  into  or  was  absorbed  by  the  Aramean, 


THE   HEBREW   LANGUAGE  39 

though  not  by  the  people  directly  learning  a  foreign 
tongue  and  consciously  forsaking  their  own  language  to 
adopt  another.  The  change  was  not  by  a  sudden  transi- 
tion, but  a  gradual  transformation.  And  it  would  be  as 
impossible  to  say  precisely  when  the  Hebrew  was  finally 
displaced  by  the  Aramean,  as  it  would  be  to  fix  the 
year  when  Anglo-Saxon  became  English,  or  Latin  was 
converted  into  Italian.  In  no  long  time,  however,  it 
may  be  safely  affirmed,  the  change  was  effected.  He- 
brew ceased  to  be  the  language  of  ordinary  intercourse 
and  thenceforward  was  known  only  as  a  sacred  and  a 
learned  language. 

The  Aramean  had  long  been  extensively  used  as  the 
medium  of  international  intercourse,  and  as  such  was 
understood  by  the  courtiers  of  Hezekiah,  though  not 
by  the  mass  of  the  people,  2  Kin.  xviii.  26.  As  subse- 
quently adopted  by  the  Jews  it  has  been  improperly 
called  the  Chaldee,  but  is  more  correctly  named  the 
Jewish  Aramean  in  distinction  from  the  Syriac  or  Chris- 
tian Aramean.  Among  the  more  striking  peculiarities 
which  these  two  principal  branches  of  the  Aramean 
have  in  common  may  be  mentioned  : 

1.  The  article  instead  of  being  prefixed  to  words  is 
affixed  at  the  end,  forming  what  is  called  the  emphatic 
state,  as  ^W  the  day,  in  Hebrew  oi^n. 

2.  Passives  are  formed  by  the  prefix  nij},  not  by  a 
change  of  vowels  in  the  body  of  the  verb,  as  bup  -  bDpny: ; 
in  Hebrew  btpp  -  biop,  biipppn  -  bi:pn. 

3.  Linguals  are  in  many  instances  substituted  for 
sibilants  in  the  cognate  languages,  as  "i  for  T,  t:  for  2, 
r\  for  "25 ;  i<  frequently  takes  the  place  of  the  Hebrew  n 
at  the  end  of  words.  Thus  Hebrew  nnt  to  sacrifice^ 
Aramean  rm ;  Hebrew  :?nT  seed,  Aramean  :?n'n  ;  He- 
brew 13 O  to  hreaJc,  Aramean  inn ;  Hebrew  l^s  rock^ 
Aramean  1^I2  ;  Hebrew  TW  counsel^  Aramean  fi<I2y. 


40  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

The  differences  between  them  are  very  slight  and 
chiefly  concern 

1.  The  written  character ;  the  Jewish  Aramean  uses 
the  Hebrew  letters  and  vowels.  The  Syriac  has  an 
alphabet  and  vowel  system  of  its  own. 

2.  A  few  grammatical  inflections,  as  in  the  3  m.s.  of 
the  future  of  verbs,  the  infinitive  in  the  derivative 
species,  and  the  construct  plural  of  nouns,  and  espe- 
cially in  the  Biblical  Ai'amean,  Hebrew  passives  occur 
instead  of  the  customary  Aramean  forms. 

3.  The  vowels  sometimes  vary  when  the  consonants 
are  the  same.  It  has  been  remarked  with  a  measure  of 
truth  that,  if  the  vowels  were  omitted,  Syriac  in  Hebrew 
letters  might  be  mistaken  for  Jewish  Aramean,  and  the 
latter  in  Syriac  letters  might  be  mistaken  for  Syriac. 

The  Jewish  Aramean  as  spoken  and  written  in  Baby- 
lonia was  substantially  identical  with  that  of  Palestine, 
a  constant  intercourse  being  maintained  between  the 
Jews  in  the  two  countries.  There  were,  however,  some 
provincial  peculiarities,  mainly  affecting  the  pronuncia- 
tion. A  story  is  told  in  the  Talmud  illustrative  of  this 
subject,  in  which  a  man  from  Babylon  and  a  woman  of 
Jerusalem  are  introduced  in  conversation  and  are  per- 
petually misunderstanding  each  other.  The  words  and 
phrases  in  the  New  Testament  taken  from  the  current 
language  of  the  people,  as  well  as  many  proper  names 
there  found,  are  Aramean,  e.gr.,  Golgotha,  Aceldama, 
Cephas,  Bar-Jonas,  Boanerges,  Ephphatha,  he  ojjened, 
Mark  vii.  34 ;  Talitha  cumi,  maiden  arise^  Mark  v.  41 ; 
Lama  sabachthani,  ivhy  hast  thou  forsaken  me  ?  Matt, 
xxvii.  46. 

The  writings  extant  in  the  Jewish  Aramean  are  the 
Aramean  sections  in  Daniel  and  Ezra  together  with  a 
verse  in  Jeremiah,  the  Targums  or  Jewish  paraphrases 
of  the  Old  Testament,  and  that  portion  of  the  Jerusalem 


THE  HEBREW   LANGUAGE  41 

and  Babylonish  Talmuds  known  as  the  Gemara,  which 
consists  of  annotations  upon  the  Mishna. 

The  history  of  the  study  of  Hebrew  from  the  time 
that  it  ceased  to  be  spoken  is  to  be  traced  first  among 
the  Jews,  then  among  the  Christians ;  the  Jewish  and 
Christian  treatment  of  this  subject  being  not  only  dis- 
tinct in  character  but  successive,  the  dividing  line  be- 
tween them  running  at  or  near  the  time  of  the  Reforma- 
tion. The  Jewish  is  again  divisible  into  two  periods, 
which  may  be  called  the  Massoretic  and  the  grammat- 
ical, the  former  reaching  to  about  the  tenth  century,  the 
latter  extending  from  that  time  to  the  Reformation. 
Schools  for  Jewish  learning  were  established  long  before 
the  time  of  Christ,  in  which  the  principal  studies  were 
the  Scriptures  and  the  traditions  of  the  elders.  After 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  such  schools  still  flomished 
in  various  parts  of  Palestine,  as  well  as  among  the  Jews 
in  Babylonia.  The  scholars  of  this  period  were  the 
authors  of  the  system  of  Hebrew  points  representing 
the  vowels  and  accents;  the  Massora,  a  collection  of 
critical  notes  upon  the  sacred  text ;  the  Talmud,  a  vast 
miscellaneous  collection  of  Pharisaical  traditions,  and 
the  Targums  or  Aramaic  paraphrases  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament. The  knowledge  of  Hebrew  possessed  by  the 
Greek-speaking  Jews  is  evidenced  by  the  Greek  trans- 
lations of  the  Old  Testament,  particularly  that  of  the 
Septuagint. 

Toward  the  tenth  century  the  Jewish  schools  in  the 
East  had  fallen  into  decline,  and  the  seat  of  rabbinical 
learning  was  transferred  to  Spain  and  Barbary.  Here, 
under  the  patronage  of  the  Arabs,  science  continued  to 
flourish.  The  Jews  caught  the  impulse,  as  is  testified 
by  their  schools  at  Granada,  Toledo,  Barcelona,  and 
elsewhere.  Their  attention  was  particularly  turned,  by 
the  example  of  the  Arab  grammarians,  to  the  scientific 


42  GENERAL  INTRODUCTION 

treatment  of  the  sacred  tongue.  Grammars  and  lexi- 
cons composed  by  Jews  in  the  eleventh  and  twelfth  cen- 
turies in  Arabic,  still  exist  in  the  libraries  of  Europe 
in  manuscript.  Among  the  most  distinguished  of  the 
learned  rabbis  were  three  of  the  name  of  Kimchi,  the 
father,  Joseph,  and  his  two  sons,  Moses  and  David. 
Particularly  the  younger  son,  David  Kimchi,  surpassed 
all  his  predecessors.  His  grammar  and  dictionary  were 
composed  in  Hebrew  and  have  been  several  times 
printed,  and  formed  the  basis  of  similar  works  even  into 
the  Christian  period.  The  best  known  and  most  influ- 
ential of  the  later  Jewish  scholars  was  Elias  Levita 
(4-  1549),  who  numbered  even  cardinals  among  his 
pupils  and  contributed  largely  to  the  promotion  of  a 
knowledge  of  Hebrew  among  Christians.  He  published 
several  works,  both  grammatical  and  lexical,  which 
were  translated  from  Hebrew  into  German  in  his  life- 
time. 

The  Christian  fathers  were  for  the  most  part  ignorant 
of  Hebrew.  With  the  exception  of  the  Syrian  Chris- 
tians, who  have  left  proofs  of  their  acquaintance  with  it 
in  the  early  Syriac  version  of  the  Old  Testament  and  in 
commentaries,  being  greatly  aided  by  its  affinity  with 
their  own  tongue,  the  knowledge  of  Hebrew  was  con- 
fined to  two  distinguished  men  in  the  Church — Origen 
in  the  third  century,  and  Jerome  in  the  fourth,  who 
was  very  much  his  superior.  From  the  time  of  Jerome 
until  the  sixteenth  century,  Hebrew  was  almost  entirely 
neglected  by  the  members  of  the  Christian  Church. 
Charlemagne  endeavored  to  have  the  study  revived, 
and  the  Council  of  Vienna  in  1311  resolved  upon  the 
appointment  of  Hebrew  professors  in  the  universities. 
But  these  endeavors  and  resolutions  accomplished  little. 
A  few  names  appear  during  the  Middle  Ages  of  those 
who  had  made  some  proficiency  in  the  language,  such  as 


THE  HEBREW   LANGUAGE  43 

Raymund  Martini,  a  Spanish  Dominican,  who  employed 
it  in  polemic  writings  against  the  Jews,  and  Nicolaus 
de  Lyra,  a  Franciscan  at  Paris,  who  applied  it  to  the 
exposition  of  the  Old  Testament. 

The  revival  of  letters,  however,  awoke  a  spirit  of 
eager  inquiry  into  the  stores  of  ancient  learning,  and 
attention  was  soon  directed  to  the  Hebrew.  But  its 
acquisition  was  attended  with  serious  difficulties.  The 
Church  at  first  looked  with  distrust  upon  its  study. 
The  rabbis  were  its  sole  depositaries,  and  they  would 
not  impart  a  knowledge  of  the  sacred  tongue  to  Chris- 
tians, except  at  a  most  exorbitant  charge.  And  the 
writings  of  the  rabbis,  their  grammars,  lexicons,  and 
commentaries,  which  were  the  only  aids  available  for  its 
acquisition,  were  themselves  in  Hebrew,  and  some 
knowledge  of  the  language  was  necessary  in  order  to 
use  them.  The  first  Hebrew  grammar  published  by  a 
Christian  was  that  of  Conrad  Pellican,  a  young  monk 
at  Tubingen,  in  1503.  The  father  of  Hebrew  learning 
in  the  Christian  Church  was  John  Reuchlin.  He  not 
only  acquired  a  knowledge  of  it  at  great  pains  and  ex- 
pense, but  also  labored  zealously  in  every  way  for  its 
promotion,  combating  the  prejudices  which  existed  in 
the  minds  of  many  against  it,  and  representing  the  great 
advantages  which  would  accrue  from  it.  His  "  Rudi- 
menta  Hebraica,"  published  in  1506,  contained  an  ele- 
mentary grammar  and  dictionary,  in  which  he  closely 
followed  Kimchi. 

All  the  leading  reformers  studied  Hebrew,  as  indeed 
the  prime  doctrine  of  the  reformation  that  the  inspired 
word  of  God  in  its  originals  was  the  sole  absolute  rule 
of  faith  and  duty  made  it  necessary  that  they  should. 
And  from  that  time  onward  to  the  present,  increasing 
attention  has  been  paid  to  this  study.  The  methods 
employed  have  passed  through  successive  stages,  mark- 


44  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

ing  as  many  distinct  schools  with  their  peculiar  princi- 
ples. 

The  first  may  be  called  the  traditional  school,  in 
which  the  determination  of  everything  in  the  language, 
the  meanings  of  words,  the  construction  of  sentences, 
and  the  meaning  of  passages,  was  settled  by  tradition, 
particularly  as  this  was  conveyed  in  Jewish  sources. 
The  Buxtorfs,  father  and  son,  professors  at  Basle,  may 
be  regarded  as  the  most  prominent  representatives  of 
this  school.  In  the  early  stages  of  this  study,  this 
method,  though  partial  and  one-sided,  was  the  only  one 
practicable.  The  language  must  first  be  learned  from 
those  who  had  known  and  studied  it  before. 

The  defects  of  this  system  and  the  rising  consequence 
of  other  branches  of  Oriental  study  led  to  the  formation 
of  another,  which  may  be  called  the  comparative  school. 
It  was  early  perceived  that  a  very  close  afiinity  was 
borne  to  the  Hebrew  by  the  cognate  languages,  and 
that  important  use  might  be  made  of  the  latter  in  the 
study  of  the  former.  Comparative  grammars  and  lexi- 
cons were  published,  exhibiting  at  one  view  the  struct- 
ure and  stock  of  words  of  the  various  Semitic  dialects. 
The  most  comprehensive  and  important  among  the 
early  efforts  of  this  kind  was  the  Heptaglot  Lexicon 
of  Edmund  Castell,  professor  in  the  University  of  Cam- 
bridge, England,  embracing  the  Hebrew,  Chaldee  (or 
Jewish  Aramean),  Syriac,  Samaritan,  Ethiopic,  and 
Arabic,  as  well  as  the  Persian,  which  belongs  to  a  dif- 
ferent family  of  tongues.  It  was  issued  in  1669  in  two 
volumes  folio  as  an  appendix  to  the  "London  Poly- 
glot." The  chief  representative  of  this  school,  how- 
ever, and  its  most  able  and  zealous  promoter,  was  Albert 
Schultens,  professor  at  Leyden  from  1729  to  his  death 
in  1750.  He  applied  his  extensive  and  thorough  ac- 
quaintance with  the  Arabic  tongue  to  the  elucidation  of 


THE   HEBREW   LANGUAGE  45 

the  Hebrew ;  and  from  him  and  his  able  coadjutors  and 
successors  among  his  countrymen  this  is  sometimes 
called  the  Dutch  school.  The  authorities  of  the  rab- 
bis were  discarded  and  Arabic  etymologies  and  Arabic 
constructions  were  applied  to  the  settlement  of  every 
doubtful  or  disputed  question.  The  consequence  was 
that  imaginary  significations,  forced  constructions,  and 
far-fetched  allusions  were  mingled  with  much  that  was 
really  good. 

A  third  school,  which  set  out  with  the  intention  of 
avoiding  the  errors  of  both  the  foregoing,  may  be  de- 
nominated the  idiomatic  school.  The  principle  upon 
which  it  proceeded  was  that  of  rejecting  all  external 
helps  and  substituting  for  them  a  minute  and  laborious 
examination  of  the  structure  of  the  language  itself.  Its 
aim  was  to  explain  all  difficult  words  and  constructions 
by  the  connection  in  which  they  stand  and  the  light 
thrown  upon  them  by  parallel  passages.  The  principal 
promoters  of  this  system  were  Gussetius  and  Alting  of 
Holland,  and  Danz  in  Germany.  Their  zeal  for  their 
one-sided  system  betrayed  them  into  great  extrava- 
gances. Thus,  finding  as  the  result  of  their  investi- 
gations that  many  triliteral  roots  of  kindred  meanings 
had  throughout  two  letters  alike,  they  drew  the  general 
inference  that  all  roots  were  originally  biliteral,  and 
accordingly  set  themselves  to  discover  their  primitive 
meaning.  And  even  biliterals  were  still  further  reduced 
to  the  individual  letters  of  which  they  were  composed, 
and  fancifully  and  absurdly  enough  arbitrary  meanings 
were  invented  for  them  based  upon  their  names,  forms, 
sounds,  etc.  Defective  as  the  method  of  this  school 
was,  it  nevertheless  had  its  uses.  It  led  to  a  more  ac- 
curate and  careful  study  of  what  was  peculiar  to  th(^ 
Hebrew,  developed  its  idioms  and  structure,  brought 
out  its  constant  usage,  and  revealed  elements  of  impor- 


46  GENERAL  INTRODUCTION 

tance  wliich  cannot  properly  be  overlooked  in  any 
method  of  study  claiming  thoroughness  and  complete- 
ness. 

The  various  erroneous,  or  rather  partial,  methods  of 
pursuing  the  study  of  Hebrew,  which  have  now  been 
detailed,  were  incident  to  it  in  its  imperfect  state. 
Each  was  based  upon  a  principle,  right  as  far  as  it 
went,  improper  only  in  its  exclusive  or  injudicious  ap- 
plication. The  labors  of  each  of  these  schools,  how- 
ever, are  invaluable  for  their  successors,  more  so,  per- 
haps, than  if  they  had  proceeded  upon  a  just  and  equal 
view  of  the  whole  ground.  Their  very  excesses  and  ex- 
travagances rendered  their  observation  more  minute, 
and  led  them  to  develop  more  thoroughly  whatever 
there  was  that  was  valuable  in  the  system  which  they 
respectively  pursued.  It  now  only  remained  to  com- 
bine judiciously  and  impartially  the  results  of  the  whole, 
and  thus  to  establish  on  the  basis  of  the  others  one 
which  might  be  called  the  comprehensive  school,  which 
neglecting  no  one  of  the  sources  within  reach,  should 
pay  to  each  just  and  proportionate  attention ;  which 
should  call  in  the  aid  of  tradition,  and  that  not  of 
Rabbinical  and  Jewish  authorities  alone,  but  ancient 
versions  and  commentators  as  well ;  which  should  draw 
from  the  cognate  languages  largely  and  minutely  stud- 
ied, and  that  not  from  some  favored  one  alone,  but 
from  all  in  due  proportion,  and  with  all  this  should  not 
neglect  the  careful  study  of  what  is  peculiar  and  idi- 
omatic in  the  Hebrew.  This  is  the  system  which  mod- 
ern scholars  are  pursuing  with  more  or  less  judgment 
and  success.  Gesenius  in  the  lexicon  and  Ewald  in 
grammar  may  be  mentioned  as  among  its  ablest  and 
most  influential  leaders. 

There  are  a  few  words  of  rare  occurrence  in  the  Bible, 
chiefly  relating  to  objects  of  natural  history  or  the  do- 


THE   HEBREW    LANGUAGE  47 

mestic  antiquities  of  the  Jews,  whose  meaning  is  not 
accurately  or  certainly  ascertained,  and  perhaps  never 
will  be ;  such,  for  instance,  as  some  of  the  particulars  in 
the  list  of  clean  and  unclean  beasts  in  Lev.  xi.,  Deut. 
xiv.,  or  of  articles  of  apparel  in  Isa.  iii.  10-23.  It  is 
possible  that  further  scientific  or  archaeological  investi- 
gations may  contribute  to  a  more  exact  understanding 
of  some  of  these.  Other  points  in  the  language  of 
minor  consequence  may  also  in  time  come  to  be  better 
understood  and  more  fully  settled.  But  none  of  these 
will  materially  affect,  however  determined,  the  sense  of 
any  important  passage  of  Scripture,  much  less  any  of 
its  doctrines  or  statements  of  duty. 

Dr.  Driver's  thorough  discussion  of  the  use  of  the  two 
forms  of  the  first  person  singular  in  the  Journal  of  Phi- 
lology, vol.  xi.,  No.  22,  places  this  subject  upon  its  proper 
basis,  and  shows  the  futility  of  the  contention  that  the 
predominance  of  "ipii;  in  the  sections  of  the  Pentateuch 
assigned  by  critics  to  P  is  proof  of  a  late  date.  His 
treatment  of  the  matter  is  here  given  in  full.  "  With 
respect  to  '^pbif!  and  '^3^5  Giesebrecht  appears  at  first 
sight  to  make  out  a  formidable  case.  Upon  the  basis 
of  the  table  given  in  Bottcher,  §  858,  he  shows  that 
while  in  writings  of  an  admittedly  early  date  the  two 
forms  occur  with  about  equal  frequency,  or  iDbij  actu- 
ally predominates  (e.g.,  the  proportion  of  ^Dbif  to  'i2i|{ 
in  J  is  90  to  52 ;  in  Judg.  17  to  12 ;  in  Sam.  50  to  50; 
in  Hos.  11  to  10),  later  writers  use  ^5^5  with  increasing 
frequency,  till  at  length  '^pbjj:  even  disappears  altogether 
(the  proportion  of  ipbj<  to  "^piJi  in  Jer.  is  37  to  53 ;  in 
Isa.  xl.-lxvi.  18  to  62 ;  in  Ezek.  1  to  138 ;  in  Lam. 
0  to  4 ;  in  Zech.  i.-viii.,  0  to  8 ;  in  Haggai  0  to  4 ;  in 
Esth.  0  to  6  ;  in  Eccl.  0  to  29  ;  in  Cliron.  1  to  30,  etc.). 
These  figures  leave  no  doubt  that  the  longer  form  fell 
gradually   into   disuse;   and   the   circumstance   that  P 


48  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

stands  here  nearly  on  the  same  footing  as  Ezekiel,  of- 
fering iD5i5  once  against  "^Si^  some  130  times  is  certainly 
remarkable.  It  will  be  worth  while,  however,  to  ex- 
amine the  instances  in  detail.  It  is  clear  in  the  first 
place  that  though  ultimately  *i:x  superseded  "^DDi^,  both 
forms  were  in  use  together  in  the  earliest  periods  of  the 
language ;  the  examples  from  J,  Judg.,  Sam.,  are  suf- 
ficient to  establish  this.  It  was  competent,  therefore, 
for  any  writer,  whatever  his  date,  to  use  "^Sfi^,  if  for  some 
reason  it  seemed  to  him  to  be  preferable  to  'iDDi<.  Now 
two  differences  are  noticeable  between  the  two  forms. 
One  is  slightly  fuller  and  more  emphatic  than  the  other ; 
and  they  are  not  rhythmically  equivalent.  Hence, 
though  doubtless  many  cases  would  occur  allowing 
equally  of  either  form,  we  should  not  expect  the  usage 
of  the  best  writers,  where  it  fluctuates,  to  be  determined 
entirely  by  accident  or  caprice,  but  rather  by  a  delicate, 
instinctive  appreciation  of  the  form  best  adapted  to 
the  structure  and  rhythm  of  particular  sentences.  And 
indeed  this  is  exactly  what  takes  place.  Sometimes 
the  writer's  choice  is  evidently  determined  by  the  posi- 
tion which  the  word  occupies  in  the  sentence,  sometimes 
by  a  feeling  that  the  sense  which  he  desires  to  convey 
will  be  better  brought  out  by  one  particular  form  ;  and 
there  are  besides  individual  phrases  of  frequent  occur- 
rence, in  which  one  form  is  all  but  uniformly  preferred 
to  the  other.  How  heavy,  for  example,  in  2  Sam.  xv.  20, 
^b^n  '^2^  '^.xa^  by  "ibin  •'Si^n  would  be  the  repetition  of 
■^DDi^ :  in  the  differently  constructed  sentence  Judg.  xvii. 
9,  «2^X  nxUi^n  ni:\b  ibin  '^DDSI,  on  the  contrary,  it  is 
perfectly  suitable.  *iS^  suits  the  rapid  movement  of 
Deut.  xxxii.  39,  i5in  "^Si^  "^D^  ^0  nnr  1^1 ;  "^d:;^  the  state- 
lier style  of  Isa.  xliii.  25,  '^'^S'TUD  'n'n^'Q  sin  -iDrs  "^Dis 
'^D3?'ab  (contrast  similarly  2  Sam.  xix.  21  and  Josh.  vii. 
20 ;  Isa.  xlv.  7b  and  xliv.  24b ;  xlvi.  4  and  xlix.  25b  ;  and 


THE   HEBREW   LANGUAGE  49 

even  xliii.  10b  and  11).  Gen.  xxvii.  19,  '^n^iDn  TOy  "^DDK, 
Jacob  not  unnaturally  lays  a  slight  emphasis  on  his  as- 
sumed personality ;  ver.  32,  ^CT  ^IIDn  ^Dn  ^'Si^,  Esau 
takes  his  own  for  granted.  Analogously,  when  the  sub- 
ject of  a  verb  is  to  be  expressed  separately,  iDi^  empha- 
sizes it  slightly,  "^D^X  is  used  where  a  rather  stronger 
emphasis  is  desired ;  contrast,  e.g.^  1  Sam.  xxvi.  6b  with 
Gen.  xlvi.  4 ;  2  Sam.  vii.  8  with  xii.  7b.  If,  further,  in- 
stances of  "'DwXI  be  compared  with  those  of  '»DK1,  it  will 
be  seen  that  often  the  latter  could  not  be  substituted 
for  the  former  without  a  distinct  loss  in  meaning ;  *>3X1 
implies  a  mere  contrast,  while  in  '^Drj^n  a  real  stress  lies 
upon  the  pronoun.  AVhat  has  been  said  above  will  ex- 
plain the  use  of  "^DiC  in  passages  such  as  Gen.  xiv.  23, 
Isa.  xxxvii.  24  f.,  xxxviii.  10,  and  the  much  greater  fre- 
quency of  ^Di^  and  "^ri^T  above  *^D2i{  and  "^DDKI  in  the 
Psalms. 

Lastly,  cases  in  which  the  shorter  form  as  a  rule  is 
decidedly  preferred,  are  when  the  pronoun  is  appended 
to  the  verb  for  the  sake  of  emphasis,  whether  with  or 
without  D^  (Judg.  i.  3,  Y5"n^n  ini<  "iSK  d:\  "^riDbni ;  2  Sam. 
xvii.  15,  ^2S  ^T\rs^  nXTDl),  and  when  it  follows  the 
participle  (1  Sam.  iii.  13,  irr^l  DK  '^Db^  tOSlTD  '^D ;  Judg. 
XV.  3) ;  on  the  contrary,  before  the  participle  (especially 
if  HDn  precede)  "^DDi^  is  more  common  (1  Sam.  iii.  11, 
•im  rnsiy  "^DDi^  riDn).  Further  examples  will  be  referred 
to  below.  So  w^e  find  almost  universally  "^piC  "'H,  "^pK  ?;nyi 
and  ipS:  "TQi^i:!  (2  Sam.  ii.  20  ''DDX  niDb^'^l)  but  Tjl?:?  ^pb« 
and  -iDDX  ''pb'Q?,  ''pbjij  "i^D. 

We  are  now  in  a  position  to  consider  the  use  of  *'3K 
in  P.  In  the  great  majority  of  cases  it  forms  part  of 
the  formula  nin*^  "^p^i;  (sometimes  with  additions),  and 
about  one-half  occur  in  the  section  Lev.  xvii.-xxvi.  Ex- 
amples of  nirr'  ''Di^  and  cognate  expressions  {^^rv^  i3fc< 
DDTlbi^  or  DDTDTptt,  mn"»  ''SX  ^Zi  yS'T^,  etc.)  are  found 
4 


50  GENERAL   INTEODUCTION 

in  Ex.  vi.  2,  6-8,  29,  vii.  5,  xii.  12  ;  xvi.  12,  etc.  (similarly 
"^IW  bv^  "^Si^,  Gen.  xvii.  1,  xxxv.  11) ;  and  beyond  the 
limits  of  P,  Deut.  xxix.  5 ;  Judg.  vi.  10 ;  1  Kings  xx.  13, 
28  ;  Isa.  xl.  ff. ;  Joel  iv.  17 ;  Jer.  xxiv.  7,  xxxii.  27,  and 
often  in  Ezekiel.  It  is  clear  then  that  nin*'  "^Di^  was  a 
standing  type  of  expression,  which,  though  used  most 
frequently  by  the  Elohist  and  Ezekiel,  was  undoubtedly 
in  use  long  before  the  exile.  The  example  Deut.  xxix. 
5  is  in  this  respect  peculiarly  instructive  ;  for,  while  the 
two  "  margins "  of  the  Deuteronomic  legislation  agree 
elsewhere  with  the  body  of  the  work  (ch.  xii.-xxvi.)  in 
exclusively  preferring  "^DSi^,  in  this  single  formula  "'ii^ 
is  employed.  Had  the  author  of  Deut.  xxix.  been  the 
first  to  use  the  expression,  he  would  surely  have  em- 
ployed ''Dji^ ;  his  use  of  "iDi^  shows  that  it  had  been  in 
use  before,  and  was  merely  borrowed  by  him  ;  and 
when  the  type  had  once  been  formed  with  "^zi^,  it  is  nat- 
ural that  it  should  be  adhered  to  uniformly.  Indeed 
it  may  be  traced  back  much  earlier  than  to  D  ;  to  Gen. 
XV.  7,  xxviii.  13  J  (the  latter  passage  vindicating  the 
originality  of  ">:  i^  in  the  former) ;  Ex.  xiv.  4,  18  E,  even 
if  vii.  17,  X.  2,  XV.  26  be  disallowed.  In  face  of  these 
facts,  whatever  weight  may  be  attached  to  the  corre- 
spondency of  P  and  Ezekiel,  or  to  the  frequency  with 
which  P  employs  the  expression,  the  mere  circumstance 
that  he  uses  ''Zi^  and  not  iD355  is  no  decisive  indication  of 
the  age  at  which  he  lived. 

There  is,  however,  another  formula  in  which  ''DSi^ 
is  employed,  occurring  in  both  recensions  of  the  Deca- 
logue (Ex.  XX.  2,  5  =  Deut.  v.  6,  9),  and  occasionally  be- 
sides (Hos.  xii.  10,  xiii.  4 ;  Isa.  xliii.  11,  xliv.  24,  li. 
15  ;  Ps.  Ixxxi.  11 ;  cf.  Gen.  xxvi.  24  J  amii^  ^nbi^  iDDK 
^^2%  xxxi.  13  E ;  xlvi.  3  E  ;  Ex.  iii.  6  E  ;  Isa.  xlvi.  9  ; 
Ps.  xlvi.  11).  But  this  is  much  rarer  than  '^S^ ;  and 
looking  at  JE  alone,  it  is  noticeable  that,  while  neither 


THE   HEBREW   LANGUAGE  51 

formula  is  there  very  frequent,  'iDK  occurs  not  less  than 
''DDfi^.  In  fact  it  is  tolerably  clear  that  whoever  first 
formulated  the  expressions  in  question  (and  both  are  met 
with  early)  was  determined  in  his  preference  for  i:^^ 
or  iD:i5  by  considerations  of  rhythm  ;  when  the  predicate 
is  nnn*'  alone,  ^DDi^  never  occurs,  the  lighter  '^ii^  being  uni- 
formly employed ;  when  the  predicate  is  weightier  (as 
onnnx  ^T\b^,  or  bi^  n^n  bi^n),  then  "^dd^^  is  found  more  ap- 
propriate to  balance  it ;  mni  iDi^  is  also  retained  when 
some  further  defining  clause  is  appended  (as  DD'^nbx 
DDdptt  or  D^'iirtt  y'\i^)2  DDni^  rh:»2T\).  So  also  Lev.  xix. 
2,  XX.  26,  xxi.  8  (where  the  predicate  ©l^p  precedes). 
With  xi.  44,  45b  "^DX  TDinp  ^D  compare  Ex.  xxii.  26  J  ^D 
*^2X  p:!!.  run"'  '^Dii?  is  confined  (except  Isa.  xliii,,  xliv.)  to 
the  instances  where  y^T\b^  (with  the  light  suflix)  follows 
(Ex.  XX.  ;  Hos.  xii.  10,  xiii.  4 ;  Ps.  Ixxxi.  11,  the  alter- 
nating types  being  CD"^nbi5  n']'n'^  ^DX  and  ^inbi^  n^n^  '^DSii ; 
for  'if'inbiC  nin"'  "^Di?  will  scarcely  be  met  with  beyond 
Isa.  xli.  13,  xliii.  3,  xlviii.  17). 

Let  us  examine  some  of  the  other  examples  of  'iDi^  in 
P,  and  consider  whether  any  principle  can  be  estab- 
lished for  their  use,  irrespective  of  date. 

1.  iniD  ^Di<  ^TUi^  Gen.  ix.  12  ;  Lev.  xiv.  34,  xxiii.  10, 
XXV.  2  ;  Num.  xiii.  2,  xv.  2 ;  Deut.  xxxii.  49,  52  ;  and 
similarly  after  the  relative  and  before  a  participle,  Ex. 
XXV.  9 ;  Lev.  xviii.  3,  xx.  22,  and  Num.  xv.  18  ("^r^^  ^w^ 
n^in  DDn«  x-inti) ;  Lev.  xviii.  24,  xx.  23 ;  Num.  v.  3, 
XXXV.  34.  D  in  similar  sentences  uses  always  ^DZiC ;  if 
D's  preference  for  "^DDi^  does  not  constitute  him  one  of 
the  earliest  writers  of  the  O.  T.,^  we  should  argue  with 
caution  from  P's  preference  for  iDX  that  he  is  one  of  the 
latest.  Both  forms  were  in  use  early ;  J  uses  ""Dii,  for 
instance.  Gen.  xxvii.  8  (xxiv.  3,  37,  42,  xxviii.  20  ''DDX), 
though  it  must  be  admitted  that  the  early  historians  gen- 
'  /.c,  in  the  opinion  of  the  critics.    W.  H.  G. 


52  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

erallj  prefer  'iDDX  in  this  connection.  It  will  be  noticed, 
however,  that  the  instances  in  P  are  mostly  cases  of  stand- 
ing expressions ;  and  it  is  quite  possible  that  "jriD  '^rK  "TOi< 
may  have  been  as  regularly  in  use  ('^DDiC  except  in 
Deut.  only  Josh.  i.  2)  as  mD5^  "^SX  '^W^,  which  is  met 
with  some  eight  times  in  writers  of  all  ages  from  Gen. 
xviii.  17  J  to  Mai.  iii.  17,  21,  while  n©:?  ^d:x  ^IS^  occurs 
only  twice,  in  one  verse  Jer.  xxxiii.  9,  where  the  rhythm 
strongly  demands  it.  How  tenaciously  phrases,  when 
once  formed,  were  adhered  to  by  the  Hebrew  writers, 
may  be  illustrated  from  the  phrase  i^'^D'O  '^2351,  which 
from  Ex.  x.  4  J  occurs  nearly  twenty  times  (especially  in 
Jeremiah  with  ny*i  following)  ;  only  once  do  we  find 
n3?n  K-inia  '^ddx  r\:n  Jer.  vi.  19. 

2.  Gen.  xvii.  4,  r^:n  ^Di^ ;  and  nsn  ^Diil  (Ex.  xxxi.  6 ; 
Num.  iii.  12,  xviii.  6,  8  ;  Jer.  i.  18),  or  ^D:n  "^Si^-i  (Gen. 
vi.  17,  ix.  9  ;  Ex.  xiv.  17  E  ;  Jer.  xxvi.  14,  xl.  10,  but  not 
Ezekiel).  This  is  the  usual  form  when  the  pronoun 
precedes  riDH ;  when  it  follows  it,  we  have  on  the  other 
hand  "^D^ii  r\ir\,  Gen.  xxiv.  13,  43,  xxv.  32,  xxviii.  15, 
xlviii.  21 ;  Ex.  iii.  13,  iv.  23,  vii.  17,  etc. ;  the  same 
idiom  in  other  books,  as  Josh,  xxiii.  14 ;  Judg.  vi.  37  (to 
denote  a  provisional  occurrence),  vii.  17,  and  often  ; 
Mai.  iii.  23 ;  1  Chron.  xvii.  1 ;  whereas  is&5  r.DH  is  very 
rare  even  in  the  books  which,  as  a  rule,  favor  ^25^  most 
decidedly,  2  Kings  x.  9  ;  Jer.  xxxii.  27  ;  Ez.  xxxvii.  5, 12, 
19,  21 ;  2  Chron.  ii.  3  are  exceptional.  The  two  forms 
n^n  "^ri^  and  iD:i5  n:n  are  obviously,  however,  not  equiv- 
alent. And  inasmuch  as  in  the  passages  from  P  the 
sense  requires  that  the  pronoun  should  occupy  the  first 
place,  there  was  no  option  but  to  employ  '^^i^ ;  for  the 
collocation  HDH  'iDDi^  (occurring,  I  believe,  once  only,  in 
the  singularly  worded  clause  Jer.  vii.  lib)  does  not  ap- 
pear to  have  been  generally  in  use. 

3.  Lev.  XX.  5  '^  ^5  '^n'Qt:'!,  xxvi.  32,  after  the  verb.     "^Si^ 


THE  HEBREW   LANGUAGE  53 

Here  is  in  accordance  with  the  usual  custom,  2  Sam.  xii. 
28,  xvii.  15  ;  Judg.  viii.  23. 

4.  Lev.  xxvi.  IG,  nWH^  "^iiC  tji^ ;  and  following  the 
verb,  xxvi.  24,  ^DX  qx  TiDbn",  (also  with  m),  28,  ^r\^D^^ 
''SS  qi5  DDnfi{.  So  Judg.  i.  3 ;  2  Sam.  xviii.  2,  22, 
■^:i5  d:\  i5rn32n"ix ;  Hos.  iv.  6,  ''DN  d:\  T^2  llDWt^,  and  else- 
where. In  neither  of  these  cases  (as  said  above)  would 
••DDi^  be  expected ;  an  early  writer  would  avoid  it  as  too 
heav}^,  not  less  than  a  later  one  (exceptions  as  Gen.  xxx. 
3,  30b  are  very  rare) ;  and  even  D,  abandoning  his  usual 
■»D2i<,  writes  as  it  were  instinctively  (xii.  30)  W^  p  n©2?K1 

In  addition  to  the  passages  cited,  there  are  some  eight 
or  ten  places  besides,  where  the  occurrence  of  "'SX  is  not 
readily  reducible  to  principle  (Num.  xx.  19,  ^Spisi  ''2i< 
follows  the  type  of  '^rT'll  ">2^  Gen.  xxxiv.  30,  xxxvii.  10, 
xii.  11 ;  1  Sam.  xiv.  40,  etc.,  which  is  a  good  deal  com- 
moner than  that  of  "iniyni  ^DDi5  Judg.  xi.  37,  cf.  vii.  18  ;  2 
Sam.  iii.  28  ;  Josh.  xxiv.  15).  The  result  of  our  investi- 
gation appears  to  be  that,  while  the  predominance  of 
■iDX  in  P  is  marked  and  undeniable,  it  is  not  so  certain 
that  this  predominance  is  to  be  attributed  to  the  late- 
ness of  date.  Though  there  are  naturally  many  oc- 
casions on  which  either  form  might  be  employed  with- 
out serious  detriment  to  sense  or  rhythm,  the  best 
writers  do  not  use  them  entirely  without  discrimina- 
tion ;  at  one  time  ^DDi5  is  preferred,  at  another  "^355. 
The  majority  of  instances  in  P  consist  of  the  formula 
mn*^  "^Di^,  which  was  certainly  in  use  long  before  the 
date  at  which  Giesebrecht  would  place  the  Elohist ;  the 
formula  being  fixed,  the  frequency  of  its  occurrence 
renders  it  characteristic  of  P — or  of  P  and  the  Holiness 
Law  Lev.  xvii.-xxvi. — but  constitutes  no  criterion  of 
the  period  at  which  P  was  composed.  And  several  of 
the  other  examples  occur  in  phrases  in  which  analogy 


54  GENERAL   INTRODtJCTION 

would  lead  us  to  suppose  that  even  an  early  writer 
would  prefer  ^3i<  to  ^DZi^.  "^DD^^  in  Dent,  occurs  almost 
entirely  in  two  or  three  fixed  formulse,  as  '^^2'Q  "^Dix, 
DDDX  T\M12  ^2^^.  I  do  not  deny  that  the  preponder- 
ance of  ''Sfi?  in  P  has  so7/ie  significance,  but  it  is  far 
less  than  the  mere  statement  of  the  numerical  ratio 
130  : 1  might  be  imagined  to  imply. 

It  is  unnecessary  to  add  anything  to  Dr.  Driver's 
lucid  and  satisfactory  discussion  of  a  very  complicated 
question,  in  which  the  superficial  method  of  merely 
counting  the  words  instead  of  taking  account  of  the 
reasons  of  their  occurrence  very  naturally  leads  to 
wholly  deceptive  results.  It  may  be  worthy  of  con- 
sideration whether  in  addition  the  general  character 
and  design  of  the  writing,  in  which  they  are  found,  may 
not  in  this  instance  have  exerted  an  appreciable  influ- 
ence upon  its  selection  of  words.  The  quiet,  unim- 
passioned  and  purely  objective  tenor  of  the  ritual  law 
does  not,  like  the  fervid  and  energetic  style  of  Deuter- 
onomy embodying  the  farewell  charge  of  the  great  leg- 
islator, require  the  use  of  the  emphatic  form  of  the 
pronoun.  For  the  same  reason,  while  Deuteronomy 
abounds  in  emphatic  forms  of  the  verb,  these  do  not 
occur  in  the  ritual  law. 

Giesebrecht  maintains,  p.  235  f.,  that  1^b^r^  to  begef, 
characterizes  P  in  distinction  from  J  and  all  the  older 
historical  literature  ;  that  this  form  is  only  to  be  found 
in  the  later  books,  while  'ib'^  originally  denoted  both  to 
beget  and  to  bring  forth,  but  in  the  course  of  time  grad- 
ually lost  the  former  signification,  and  came  to  be  used 
no  longer  of  the  father,  but  only  of  the  mother.  And 
Professor  Konig  in  the  Theolog.  Liter aturhlatt,  October 
8,  1897,  and  December  6,  1895,  cf.  also  his  "Einleitung 
ins.  A.  T.,"  p.  229,  insists  that  P's  use  of  Tbin  and  'l2^5 
is  an  irrefragable  proof  of  the  late  date  of  this  docu- 


THE   HEBREW    LANCJUAGE  66 

ment.  Its  use  of  iDi5  has  been  vindicated  above.  The 
facts  in  regard  to  lb''  and  '1^b^n  are  these.  The  use  of 
nb"'  in  application  to  the  father  is  limited  to  a  very  few 
passages  scattered  sparsely  over  the  Old  Testament.  It 
is  found  only  in  genealogies  in  Genesis  not  relating  to 
the  chosen  race,  viz.,  iv.  18,  x.  8,  13,  15,  '24,^  26  (copied 
1  Chron.  i.  10-20),  xxii.  23,  xxv.  3,  and  in  Deut.  xxxii. 
18 ;  Ps.  ii.  7  ;  Prov.  xvii.  21,  xxiii.  22,  24 ;  Job  xxxviii. 
29  (but  in  ver.  28  n^bin)  ;  Isa.  xhx.  21 ;  Zech.  xiii. 
3  (twice  of  both  parents)  ;  Dan.  xi.  6.  With  these 
exceptions,  nb""  is  uniformly  and  with  great  frequency 
used  of  the  mother ;  and  "i^'bin  is  uniformly  used  of  the 
father  both  in  the  generations  of  Genesis  relating  to  the 
chosen  race,  and  everywhere  else  in  the  Old  Testament 
when  paternity  is  spoken  of.  So  that  Jer.  xxx.  6  using 
nbi  in  its  ordinary  sense  says,  as  of  something  incred- 
ible, Ask  and  see  whether  a  man  doth  bring  forth 
(A.  v.,  travail  with  child).  That  this  does  not  mark  a 
limit  in  time,  after  which  lb""  could  not  be  used  of  the 
father,  is  plain  from  the  examples  above  given  from 
Zechariah  and  Daniel,  not  to  speak  of  the  passage  in 
Isaiah,  which  the  critics  would  transfer  to  the  latter 
part  of  the  Babylonish  exile.  The  only  conclusion  that 
can  be  drawn  from  the  facts  as  they  lie  before  us,  is 
that  of  Dillmann  that  ^^bin  is  "  the  more  precise  form 
of  expression,"  or  as  Driver  phrases  it,  is  "adopted  for 
greater  distinctness "  in  preference  to  a  term  which 
might  be  "used  indifferently  of  either  parent."  The 
more  exact  term  is  used  in  tracing  the  line  of  descent 
of  the  chosen  people  ;  the  less  explicit  sufficed  for 
other  populations  and  for  the  occasional  uses  of  poetry. 

'  This  verse  is  no  exception  to  the  statement  above  made  ;  Arpach- 
shad,  Slielah,  Eber,  are  here  introduced  as  ancestors  of  the  various 
Arab  tribes.  In  xi  12,  14  they  appear  as  ancestors  of  the  chosen 
race,  and  T^blH  is  used. 


5Q  GENERAL  INTKODUCTION 

Both  lb^  and  T^bin  occur  in  relation  to  the  father  in 
Deuteronomy,  Isaiah,  Job,  and  Chronicles.  They  are 
accordingly  in  use  at  one  and  the  same  time,  and  for 
all  that  appears  may  have  been  both  in  use  in  the  time 
of  Moses.  So  that  the  occurrence  of  one  of  these  words 
in  one  class  of  the  genealogies  in  Genesis,  and  of  the 
other  in  another  class,  does  not  justify  the  conclusion 
that  these  must  have  been  separated  by  centuries. 


IV 

HEBREW    LETTERS    AND    VOWELS 

The  letters  used  in  modem  Hebrew  Bibles  are  the 
same  that  are  found  in  all  existing  manuscripts  with 
scarcely  any  variation  of  form.  But  Jewish  coins  from 
the  time  of  Simon  Maccabaeus,  140  B.C.,  to  that  of  Bar 
Cochab,  A.D.  135,  have  a  different  character,  which  is 
evidently  related  to  the  Phoenician  and  closely  re- 
sembles that  in  use  among  the  Samaritans.  This  same 
character  somewhat  modified  occurs  on  the  inscription 
discovered  in  1880  in  the  tunnel  leadin<2^  to  the  pool  of 
Siloam,  which  is  supposed  to  belong  to  the  reign  of 
king  Hezekiah,  2  Kin.  xx.  20 ;  also  upon  some  ancient 
Hebrew  seals  and  gems.  The  question  hence  arises  as 
to  the  relation  of  these  two  forms  of  the  Hebrew  letters, 
that  in  ordinary  use  at  present,  which  is  called  the  square 
letter,  and  that  which  is  found  upon  the  coins  and  in- 
scriptions. The  later  Jewish  rabbis  held  the  square 
letter  in  great  veneration,  and  regarded  it  as  the  primi- 
tive character  in  which  the  Scriptures  were  originally 
written.  In  the  earlier  traditions,  however,  the  coin 
letter  is  called  Hebrew  writing,  and  the  square  character 
is  called  Assyrian  writing  and  is  said  to  have  been  in- 
troduced by  Ezra.  Thus  in  the  Talmud :  ^  "  In  the  be- 
ginning the  law  was  given  to  Israel  in  Hebrew  writing 
and  in  the  holy  tongue  ;  but  it  was  given  to  them  again 
in  the  days  of  Ezra  in  Assyrian  writing  and  in  the  Ara- 
mean  tongue ;  Israel  chose  the   Assyrian  writing  and 

'  Quoted  by  Geseniu8,  Geschichte  d.  heb  Spracbo  u.  Scbrift,  p    150. 

57 


58  GENERAL   INiKODUCTION 

the  liolj  tongue,  and  left  to  the  idiots  {i.e.,  the  Samari- 
tans) the  Hebrew  writing  and  the  Aramean  tongue." 
And  again,  "Although  the  law  was  not  given  by  the  hand 
of  Ezra,  the  writing  was  changed  by  him,  and  is  hence 
called  Assyrian  ^  because  it  came  up  with  them  from 
Assyria."  Origen  records  the  same  tradition  :  "  They 
say  that  Ezra  used  different  letters  after  the  captivity." 
He  further  states  that  in  the  ancient  character  Tav  had 
the  form  of  a  cross,  and  that  the  Hebrew  word  Jehovah 
was  retained  in  the  ancient  character  ^  in  some  manu- 
scripts of  the  Septuagint,  and  was  read  pipi  by  persons 
ignorant  of  Hebrew.  In  like  manner  Jerome  says  :  "It 
is  certain  that  Ezra  the  scribe  and  doctor  of  the  law, 
after  Jerusalem  was  taken  and  the  temple  restored  under 
Zerubbabel,  found  other  letters  which  we  now  use,  since 
up  to  that  time  the  Samaritans  and  Hebrews  had  the 
same  characters."  To  which  it  may  be  added  that  the 
Samaritans  call  their  letter  Hebrew  writing  in  contrast 
with  the  square  character  which  they  denominate  the 
writing  of  Ezra.^ 

The  relation  of  the  square  character  to  that  upon  the 
coins  was  vehemently  disputed  in  the  seventeenth  cen- 
tury, particularly  between  Buxtorf,^  Professor  in  the 
University  of  Basle,  and  Cappellus,^  Professor  of  Orien- 
tal Languages  in  the  University  at  Saumur  in  France. 
The  former  affirmed,  the  latter  denied,  the  antiquity  and 

^  Assyria  is  here,  as  in  Ezra  vi.  22,  inclusive  of  Babylonia.  Others 
understand  ri'^'lTlUX  as  applied  to  the  modern  Hebrew  character  to 
mean  not  "Assyrian."  but  "  firm  "  or  "  erect  "  and  equivalent  to  the 
^'  square  letter;  "  so  Hupfeld  in  Stud.  u.  Krit.,  1830,  p. 296  :  Hiivernick, 
Einl.  I.,  p.  293. 

2  Origen  is  here  plainly  in  error  in  saying  that  this  was  the  old  He- 
brew character ;  it  is  only  the  square  letter  in  which  niiT^  could  be 
mistaken  for  niTlI. 

2  Gesenius,  ubi  supra,  p.  144. 

''De  literarum  hebraicanira  genuina  antiquitate,  Basileae,  1662. 

*  Diatribe  de  veris  et  antiquis  Hebraeorum  Uteris,  Amstelod.,  1045. 


HEBREW   LETTERS   AND    VOWELS  59 

originality  of  the  present  Hebrew  character.  Each 
brought  an  immense  amount  of  rabbinical  learning  to 
confirm  the  position  which  he  had  taken. 

Buxtorf  held  that  there  were  two  characters  simulta- 
neously in  use  among  the  ancient  Hebrews,  a  sacred 
letter  in  which  the  tables  of  the  covenant  and  the 
Scriptures  were  wTitten,  and  a  common  letter  employed 
in  business  transactions  and  for  secular  purposes  gener- 
ally. The  square  letter  found  in  all  the  manuscript 
copies  of  the  Scriptures  was  the  sacred  one.  That  upon 
the  coins  was  the  secular  or  common  character.  During 
the  Babylonish  exile  the  priests  and  learned  men  among 
the  Jews,  being  principally  engaged  with  the  transcrip- 
tion and  study  of  the  law,  preserved  the  sacred  character 
and  allowed  the  other  to  fall  gradually  into  disuse.  The 
poorer  and  profaner  classes  of  the  people,  who  had  been 
left  behind,  neglected  the  law,  and  gave  up  the  use  of 
the  sacred  character,  preserving  only  that  appropriated 
to  secular  purposes.  From  them  it  passed  to  the  Sa- 
maritans ;  consequently  it  is  the  secular  character  only 
which  is  found  among  them.  When  Ezra  and  the  other 
captives  returned  from  Babylon,  they  broiight  the  old 
sacred  character  wdth  them ;  and  this  accounts  for  the 
tradition  which  ascribes  its  introduction  to  Ezra,  and 
speaks  of  it  as  brought  from  Babylon. 

This  hypothesis  of  two  co-existing  alphabets  was  sup- 
ported, 1.  By  the  analogy  of  other  nations,  e.g.,  the  an- 
cient Egyptians,  who  had  a  threefold  character,  the  hiero- 
glyphic engraved  on  monuments,  the  hieratic  or  sacred, 
and  the  demotic  or  popular.  2.  By  Isa.  viii.  1,  where 
"  write  with  the  pen  of  a  man  "  was  supposed  to  mean 
write  not  in  the  sacred  but  in  the  common  character 
which  everybody  employs  and  can  understand.  3.  A 
passage  in  Iren?eus  which  speaks  of  sacerdotal  letters 
among  the  Hebrews.     In  Iren?cus'  ignorance  of  the  He- 


60  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

brew,  however,  his  authority  cannot  be  of  much  weight, 
especially  as  in  the  very  sentence  from  which  the  proof 
is  brought  there  are  other  palpable  errors.  The  verse 
in  Isaiah  means  no  more  than  write  plainly  and  legibly. 
And  the  analogy  adduced  might  illustrate  a  similar  fact 
among  the  Jews,  if  proved,  but  cannot  of  course  prove  it. 
Accordingly,  this  hypothesis,  though  widely  adopted  at 
the  time,  has  long  since  been  abandoned. 

Gesenius  in  his  earlier  writings  accepted  the  old 
Jewish  tradition,  and  accordingly  maintained  that  the 
Samaritan  or  coin  letter  was  the  older,  and  was  in  use 
in  both  the  kingdoms  of  Judah  and  of  Israel  until  their 
respective  captivities.  It  was  preserved  by  the  remnant 
of  the  ten  tribes,  and  through  them  came  into  the  pos- 
session of  the  Samaritans.  But  the  Jews  in  their  sev- 
enty years'  captivity  at  Babylon,  gave  up  alike  the  use 
of  their  language  and  of  its  written  character,  adopting 
both  the  letter  and  language  which  they  found  at  Baby- 
lon. This  they  brought  back  with  them  from  the  exile 
and  have  since  retained.  But  the  difficulties  remain 
that  the  square  letter  was  not  in  use  at  Babylon,  and 
that  the  coin  letter  was  employed  by  the  Jews  as  late  as 
the  time  of  the  Maccabees,  and  even  later. 

This  vexed  question  was,  however,  at  last  set  at  rest 
by  the  researches  of  Kopp  ^  and  others  in  comparative 
Semitic  palaeography.  It  has  been  demonstrated  that 
all  the  Semitic  alphabets  are  connected  by  affiliation  or 
derivation.  The  common  parent  of  the  whole  is  the 
Phoenician,  to  which  the  Hebrew  coin  letter  is  so  nearly 
allied  that  it  must  have  been  one  of  its  early  modifica- 
tions. This  was  accordingly  the  original  Hebrew  letter, 
and  its  adoption  in  the  first  Jewish  coinage  shows  that 
it  must  have  continued  in  ordinary  use  as  late  as  the 
time  of  the  Maccabees.     To  this  succeeded  the  square 

'  Ulrich  Kopp,  Bilder  und  Schriften  der  Vorzeit,  1821. 


HEBREW   LETTERS  AND   VOWELS  61 

character,  not  by  a  sudden  change,  not  by  being  intro- 
duced from  abroad,  whether  from  Babylon  or  elsewhere, 
but  by  successive  and  gradual  modifications  through  a 
considerable  space  of  time ;  just  as  the  Greek  letter  of 
modern  times  was  formed  upon  the  uncial  originally  in 
use.  The  connecting  links  can  still  be  traced  in  Ara- 
mean  inscriptions  found  in  Palmyra  and  in  Egypt,  in 
which  the  alphabet  was  in  a  transition  state. 

The  causes  which  were  mainly  operative  in  produc- 
ing these  changes  can  also  be  pointed  out.  There  was 
first  a  cursive  tendency;  in  rapid  writing  the  letters 
are  formed  in  the  quickest  and  easiest  way,  minor  de- 
tails are  neglected,  and  only  the  principal  strokes  nec- 
essary for  their  recognition  are  retained.  And  instead 
of  the  pen  being  lifted  after  each  letter  is  formed,  it 
is  linked  to  its  successor  by  a  horizontal  connecting 
stroke,  which  at  the  end  of  words  naturally  runs  into  a 
terminal  flourish,  thus  giving  a  peculiar  form  to  certain 
final  letters.  This  was  followed  by  a  calligraphic  ten- 
dency, which  again  separates  the  letters,  and  aims  at 
regularity  and  evenness  of  form,  which  is  so  remarkable 
in  the  square  Hebrew  character.  Careful  comparisons 
of  extant  inscriptions  have  made  it  possible  to  note  the 
precise  changes  which  have  taken  place  from  time  to 
time  in  each  letter  of  the  alphabet. 

At  what  precise  time  the  square  character  was  fully 
formed,  as  we  now  see  it,  cannot  be  accurately  deter- 
mined. It  must  have  been  before  the  fourth  or  even  the 
third  century  of  the  Christian  era,  as  is  plain  from  the 
testimony  of  Origen  and  Jerome.  Their  statements  re- 
specting the  Hebrew  letters  existing  in  their  day  iden- 
tify them  beyond  question  Avith  those  that  we  now  have. 
And  it  is  highly  probable  that  these  same  letters  were  in 
use  in  the  time  of  Christ  from  an  expression  in  Matt.  v. 
18,  where  Yodh  is  referred  to  as  the  smallest  of  the  al- 


62  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

phabet ;  this  is  true  of  the  present  Hebrew  character, 
but  not  of  the  coin  letter  nor  of  the  Samaritan.  The 
attempt  has  been  made  to  determine  which  letter  was 
in  use  when  the  Septuagint  version  was  made  in  a  very 
ingenious  manner,  by  examining  all  the  places  in  which 
an  error  seems  to  have  arisen  from  the  translator  mis- 
taking one  letter  for  another,  and  determining  in  the 
use  of  which  alphabet  these  mistakes  could  most  easily 
have  occurred.  It  has  been  plausibly  maintained  that  the 
majority  of  instances  appear  to  favor  the  idea  that  the 
translation  was  made  from  manuscripts  in  the  square 
character  or  in  one  that  closely  resembled  it.  Still  the 
uncertainties  attaching  to  this  style  of  argument  are  so 
great  that  it  cannot  be  said  to  have  led  to  any  settled 
or  satisfactory  result.  Perhaps  the  safest  conclusion 
is  that  the  square  character  came  into  use  between  the 
time  of  Simon  Maccabseus  and  that  of  Christ.  The 
old  character  was,  however,  not  wholly  displaced  b}^  it 
immediately,  as  appears  from  its  being  still  retained  in 
the  coinage  as  late  as  a.d.  135. 

Undue  importance  was  attached  to  this  controversy 
at  first  in  consequence  of  its  being  complicated  with 
other  questions  which  were  thought  to  depend  upon  it. 
It  was  treated  as  though  it  involved  the  integrity  of  the 
Hebrew  text.  Cappellus  insisted  that  this  was  ex- 
tremely faulty  and  stood  in  need  of  almost  constant  cor- 
rection. Buxtorf,  as  the  stanch  defender  of  the  integ- 
rity of  the  sacred  text,  was  induced  to  take  extreme 
ground  upon  the  opposite  side,  and  to  maintain  that 
the  Hebrew  Scriptures  have  been  preserved  in  their 
original  form,  even  to  the  shape  of  the  letters  in  which 
they  were  written.  To  admit  that  the  Jews  had  de- 
parted from  the  primitive  Hebrew  character,  while  the 
Samaritans  had  retained  it,  seemed  to  be  yielding  some- 
thing to  the  prejudice  of  that  steadfast  adherence  to 


HEBREW    LETTERS    AND    VOWELS  63 

antiquity  on  the  part  of  the  Jews,  which  gives  assurance 
of  the  correctness  of  the  Scriptures  which  have  been  in 
their  keeping.  It  seemed  to  be  admitting  a  superiority 
in  one  point  at  least  of  the  Samaritan  over  the  Jewish 
Pentateuch,  whence  a  presumption  might  arise  in  favor 
of  the  greater  accuracy  of  the  former.  But  it  is  evident 
that  the  purity  and  authority  of  the  Old  Testament  are 
not  in  the  slightest  degree  affected  by  the  shape  of  the 
letters  in  which  it  is  written.  It  is  no  detriment  to  the 
New  Testament  to  be  printed  in  the  ordinary  Greek  let- 
ter instead  of  the  old  uncial  character. 

The  controversy  respecting  the  primitive  form  of  the 
letters  w^as  subsidiary  to  another  of  greater  importance, 
which  also  concerned  not  the  matter  of  the  text  but  its 
form,  viz.,  that  relating  to  the  antiquity  and  authority 
of  the  Hebrew  vowels  and  accents.  The  Jewish  rabbis 
of  the  Middle  Ages  were  almost  universally  of  the  opin- 
ion that  the  vow^els  were  an  integral  part  of  the  original 
text,  or  else  that  they  were  appended  to  it  by  Ezra  and 
received  the  sanction  of  his  inspiration.  Aben  Ezra, 
however,  a  Spanish  rabbi  of  distinction  in  the  twelfth 
century,  is  quoted  as  holding  that  they  were  the  work  of 
the  Jewish  scholars  at  Tiberias.^  Elias  Levita  in  the 
sixteenth  century  was  the  first  to  discuss  the  subject  at 
any  length,  which  he  did  in  the  preface  to  his  work  en- 
titled "  Massoreth  Hammassoreth,"  published  in  1538, 
where  he  claims  that  the  vowels  were  added  to  the  text 
by  the  Massoretic  doctors  at  Tiberias.  The  elder  Bux- 
torf  ^  replied  to  the  arguments  of  Levita,  and  souf^jht  to 

'  Aben  Ezra  says  "  we  receive  all  the  points  from  the  wise  men  of 
Tiberias."  The  younger  Buxtorf  claims  that  his  meaning  in  tliis  pas- 
sage is  not  that  tliey  invented  tlie  points,  but  by  a  careful  collation 
prepared  an  accurate  edition  of  the  pointed  text,  which  should  be  ac- 
cepted.— De  Punctorum  Origine,  p.  20. 

'^  Father  and  predecessor  of  the  Buxtorf  before  mentioned  as  Pro- 
fessor at  Basle,  in  his  Tiberias  sive  Commentarius  Masorethicus,  1G20. 


64  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

refute  his  position.  Levita's  opinion,  however,  found 
favor  with  Cappellus,  who  wrote  a  defence  of  it,  repeat- 
ing, confirming,  and  augmenting  the  arguments  of  Le- 
vita,  and  sent  the  manuscript  to  Buxtorf  for  his  judg- 
ment. Buxtorf  returned  it  to  the  author,  noting  his 
objections  to  the  various  positions,  and  replying  to  the 
arguments,  confessing  frankly  the  difficulty  of  the  sub- 
ject but  advising  against  the  publication  of  the  views 
contained  in  the  manuscript  as  of  dangerous  tendency. 
Cappellus  then  sent  his  treatise  to  Leyden  to  a  distin- 
guished Dutch  scholar,  Yan  Erpe,  more  commonly 
known  by  his  Latin  name  Erpenius.  He  had  previously 
arrived  at  the  same  conclusion  respecting  the  Hebrew 
points  Avith  Cappellus,  and  at  once  committed  his  man- 
uscript to  the  press. ^  All  who  held  contrary  views 
turned  their  eyes  to  Buxtorf  for  a  reply,  and  he  received 
numerous  and  urgent  solicitations  to  that  effect,  among 
others  from  Archbishop  XJssher.  His  other  labors, 
however,  prevented  his  preparation  of  it,  though  he  had 
projected  one  and  sketched  its  outline.  After  his  death 
his  son  and  successor  published,  in  1648,  his  treatise  on 
the  Origin,  Antiquity,  and  Authority  of  the  vowel  points 
and  accents,  arguing  that  the  points,  if  not  in  existence 
prior  to  Ezra,  were  at  least  introduced  by  him.  To  this 
work,  which  contained  not  a  few  asperities  and  person- 
alities, Cappellus  replied  in  a  tone  of  equal  acrimony, 
defending  his  former  position  and  endeavoring  to  in- 
validate that  of  his  adversary  ;  this  was  not  published 
until  1689,  more  than  thirty  years  after  his  death. 

The  views  of  Buxtorf  upon  this  subject  were,  at  the 
time,  very  generally  adopted  by  the  orthodox  party  in 
the  Church,  both  in  England  and  on  the  continent, 
while  those  of  Cappellus,  though  approved  by  many, 
were  severely  reprobated  by  others  as  dangerous  and 
'  Under  the  title»  Arcanum  Punctuationis  Revelatum,  1624. 


HEBREW   LETTERS   AND   VOWELS  65 

heretical.  It  was  made  an  article  of  faith  in  the  ''  For- 
mula Consensus  Helvetica  "  that  the  Old  Testament  is 
inspired  "as  to  its  vowels  or  points,  or  at  least  as  to 
the  power  of  its  points."  And  the  learned  Puritan  di- 
vine, John  Owen,  wrote  earnestly  against  the  views  of 
Cappellus  as  adopted  by  Bishop  Walton  in  his  "Prole- 
gomena to  the  London  Polyglot."  He  evidently  argues 
under  the  impression  that  to  deny  the  inspiration  of  the 
points  is  to  destroy  all  certainty  in  the  interpretation  of 
the  Old  Testament,  and  thus  undermine  its  authority. 

It  is  now  imiversally  conceded,  however,  that  the 
vowel-points  were  not  coeval  with  the  letters  of  the  text 
for  the  following  reasons  : 

1.  The  cumbrous  minuteness  of  their  notation  ren- 
ders it  extremely  improbable  that  they  were  in  use  so 
long  as  the  Hebrew  was  a  living  tongue. 

2.  The  analogy  of  the  kindred  dialects.  Syriac  and 
Arabic  were  originally  written  without  vowel  signs ; 
these  are  a  later  invention.  The  Samaritan  uses  sub- 
stantially the  old  form  of  the  Hebrew  letters,  but  has 
no  vowel  signs ;  neither  have  the  ancient  Hebrew  in- 
scriptions, nor  the  Phoenician  monuments. 

3.  The  synagogue  rolls,  to  which  special  sacredness 
is  attached,  never  have  the  vowel  points ;  this  can  only 
be  accounted  for,  if  the  points  are  not  an  original  con- 
stituent of  the  sacred  text,  but  a  subsequent  innovation. 

4.  The  early  Jewish  tradition  that  the  vowels  were 
preserved  orally  from  the  time  of  Moses,  and  first  com- 
mitted to  writing  by  Ezra,  is  like  the  similar  tradition 
respecting  the  altered  form  of  the  letters,  accepted  as 
an  admission  that  the  vowel  signs  were  not  coeval  with 
the  letters  ;  their  introduction  is  supposed  to  be  attrib- 
uted to  Ezra  for  the  sake  of  gaining  for  them  greater 
credit. 

5.  The  present  vowel  system  could  not  have  been  in 

5 


66  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

existence  when  the  Septuagint  version  was  made ;  for  it 
deviates  from  it  considerably  in  its  manner  of  trans- 
literating proper  names,  and  repeatedly  translates  words 
as  the  letters  would  admit,  but  the  vowels  Avould  not. 

6.  Origen  in  the  third  century  a.d.  in  his  Hexapla 
gives  a  pronunciation  of  the  Hebrew  words  in  Greek 
letters,  which  does  not  agree  with  the  vowel  points. 

7.  It  has  been  a  disputed  question  whether  Jerome 
in  the  fourth  century  was  acquainted  with  the  present 
vowel  system;  but  it  is  now  well  established  that  he 
was  not.  He  generally  adheres  to  that  pronunciation 
and  understanding  of  the  text  which  is  yielded  by  the 
vowels ;  but  he  often  speaks  of  the  ambiguity  of  words, 
which  are  only  ambiguous  when  written  without  the 
points.  In  such  cases  he  frequently  chides  the  LXX. 
for  departing  from  "  the  Hebrew  verity,"  which  he  him- 
self follows.  And  though  it  might  seem  in  some  in- 
stances that  he  was  governed  by  something  in  the  text, 
additional  to  the  letters,  in  deciding  upon  its  meaning, 
a  careful  scrutiny  of  his  language  shows  that  this  was 
not  the  case,  but  that  his  decision  rests  upon  the  sense 
required  by  the  context,  the  rendering  of  later  Greek 
versions,  or,  which  is  his  main  dependence,  the  instruc- 
tion received  from  his  Hebrew  teacher.^     He  speaks  of 

'Jerome  on  Hos.  xi.  10:  "The  word  MJM,  which  is  written  with 
three  letters,  Mem,  Jod,  Mem,  if  it  be  read  Majim  means  water ^  if 
mijam  from  the  sea."  On  Hos.  xiii.  3  :  "  Locust  and  chimney  are 
written  with  the  same  letters,  Aleph,  Res,  Beth,  He,  which,  if  read 
arbe,  means  locust.,  if  aruba  chimney."  He  adds  that  whoever  follows 
the  LXX.  in  reading  "locust"  "refuses  to  receive  the  Hebrew  veri- 
ty." On  Hab,  iii.  5  :  "In  Hebrew  there  are  three  letters,  Daleth. 
Beth,  Res,  without  any  vowel,  which  if  read  dabar  signify  word,  if 
deber  pestilence.  .  .  .  This  word  can  be  variously  read,  and  this 
ambiguity  is  the  cause  of  various  readings  and  interpretations,"  t.c  ,  in 
different  versions.  Quoted  from  Buxtorf,  De  Punctorum  Origine,  p. 
160  ff.  Hupfeld  in  Stud.  u.  Krit.,  1830,  p.  584,  gives  the  following  from 
Jerome,  Epist.  to  Damasus.  125,  Question  2  on  IJx.  xiii    18,  where  the 


HEBREW   LETTERS   AND   VOWELS  67 

vowels,  it  is  true,  and  of  accents;  but  by  vowels  he 
means  the  vowel  letters,  and  by  accents  the  pronuncia- 
tion of  a  word,  or  what  is  added  to  its  written  form  in 
giving  it  vocal  expression.^ 

8.  The  Targums,  particularly  those  of  Onkelos  and 
Jonathan,  adhere  very  remarkably  to  the  sense  as  given 
by  the  points.  But,  as  in  the  case  of  Jerome,  this 
proves  not  an  acquaintance  with  the  points,  but  with 
the  traditional  interpretation  of  the  text  which  has  for 
the  most  part  faithfully  preserved  its  meaning,  and 
with  which  the  points  are  also  in  accord.  Some  in- 
stances in  which  they  depart  from  the  reading  yielded 
by  the  points  can  be  accounted  for  by  their  attributing 

LXX.  render  "  in  the  fifth  generation  "  and  Aquila  "  armed."  "  I  open 
the  Hebrew  roll,  and  examining  the  characters  themselves  more  carefully, 
I  find  it  written  vaharaisira.  [The  pointed  text  is  D'^'iD'Oni,  not  mi  but 
mu.  ]  All  the  contest  is  about  the  word  hamisim,  which  is  written  in  these 
letters,  Heth,  Mem,  Sin,  Jod,  Mem,  whether  it  means  Jive  or  armed. 
And  indeed  we  cannot  deny  that  Jive  is  expressed  by  this  word,  but  in 
the  plural  number,  not  quinta  as  they  interpret  in  the  singular,  but 
quinti.  All  Judea,  however,  exclaims  in  unison  that  Aquila,  as  in  other 
places,  so  particularly  in  this,  has  translated  properly,  and  the  seats 
in  the  synagogues  universally  agree  therewith.  For  the  same  word  and 
written  with  the  same  letters  may  have  with  them  different  sounds  and 
meanings."  This  passage  is  partially  quoted  by  Buxtorf,  p.  151,  who 
lays  great  stress  upon  Jerome's  careful  inspection  of  the  Hebrew  text 
in  order  to  decide  between  discordant  versions,  where  the  letters  are 
ambiguous  and  the  vowels  alone  determine  the  meaning.  But  the  fact 
is  that  here,  as  in  some  other  cases,  Jerome  fails  to  give  the  vowels 
correctly,  while  holding  to  the  sense  yielded  by  the  vowel  points  as 
commonly  interpreted.  And  he  puts  his  decision  not  upon  the  ground 
of  what  he  discovers  in  the  text,  but  the  accurate  rendering  of  Aquila 
vouched  for  by  universal  Jewish  testimony. 

'  He  says  on  Isa,  xxxviii.  14  :  If  the  letter  Vau  be  placed  as  a  middle 
vowel  between  two  Samachs,  it  is  read  Sus  and  means  a  horse ;  if  Jod, 
it  is  read  "Sis"  and  denotes  "a  swallow.''^  And  in  Epist.  73  to 
Evagrius  :  "  It  matters  not  whether  it  be  called  Salim  or  Salem,  since 
the  Hebrews  very  rarely  use  vowel  letters  in  the  middle  of  a  word, 
and  the  same  words  are  pronounced  with  different  sounds  and  accents 
at  the  pleasure  of  the  readers  and  in  different  regions." 


68  GENERAL  INTRODUCTION 

an   Aramean   sense   to  Hebrew  words  and  forms,  or 
adopting  in  preference  an  allegorizing  interpretation. ^ 

9.  It  is  more  difficult  to  determine  whether  the  Tal- 
mud contains  any  allusion  to  the  vowel  points,  but 
a  thorough  examination  of  the  case  has  shown  that 
it  does  not.  It  nowhere  mentions  the  name  of  any 
vowel  or  accent.  It  uses  the  word  D'^'a3?t3  accents  to  de- 
note the  vocal  expression  rather  than  any  written  sign  ; 
and  O'lplD'^S  verses,  but  whether  these  did  or  did  not  cor- 
respond with  the  verses  at  present  in  use,  there  is  no 
proof  of  the  existence  of  the  accentual  system  subse- 
quently built  upon  them.  The  phrase  is  of  frequent 
occurrence  "  do  not  read  so,  but  so,"  ^  where  the  word 

'  Thus  Onkelos  renders  Deut.  xxvi.  5  :  "  Laban  the  Aramean  sought 
to  destroy  my  father,"  instead  of  "An  Aramean  ready  to  perish  was 
my  father,"  not  because  he  read  ^3i{  for  ^li^,  but  he  treated  the  lat- 
ter as  the  Aramean  Aphel  ^lii5.  Allegorizers  were  also  fond  of 
availing  themselves  of  the  ambiguity  of  the  letters  apart  from  the 
vowels  in  order  to  discover  a  multiple  sense  in  Scripture,  and  thus  en- 
hance its  richness. 

'^  Buxtorf,  pp.  96,  101,  gives  these  among  other  illustrations  of  this 
punning  upon  Scripture  language.  On  Isa.  liv.  13,  All  thy  children 
shall  be  taught  of  Jehovah,  the  remark  is  made  :  Do  not  read  "  thy 
children  "  (Tf'^an)  but  "  thy  builders  "  (^"^33).  On  Ps.  i.  23,  And 
prepareth  a  way  that  I  may  show  him  the  salvation  of  God,  it  is  writ- 
ten :  Do  not  read  "  prepareth  "  (D®)  but  "  there  is  "  (D^).  ^^^ 
says  he  that  salutes  his  fellow  before  he  has  prayed  is  as  if  he  made 
of  him  a  high  place,  and  quotes  in  proof  Isa.  ii.  22;  do  not  read 
"  wherein  "  (^rT)?^)  but  "  a  high  place  "  (TO^)  is  he  to  be  accounted. 
He  adds,  p.  98  :  "  This  change  of  words  and  variant  reading  is  not 
made  by  them  from  any  doubt  or  contention  or  dissension,  as  if  they 
either  hesitated  about  the  true  reading  and  wished  to  introduce  an- 
other, or  contended  with  one  another  about  a  different  reading  in  these 
places  ;  nor  are  they  conjectures  respecting  various  readings  of  any 
word,  but  as  my  father  correctly  and  truly  wrote  in  Tiberias  ch  ix., 
"  because  to  the  literal  and  genuine  reading  and  explanation  of  any 
word  they  wished  to  add  another,  not  to  deliver  the  true  sense  of  the 
word  but  to  elicit  some  other  allegorical  sense."  They  take  this 
liberty  because  they  believe  that  there  is  an  infinite  amplitude  of  the 
word  of  God,  and  hold  this  principle  :    "  In  order  to  elicit  various 


HEBREW   LETTERS   AND   VOWELS  69 

in  question  is  capable  of  different  senses,  that  are  only 
distinguishable  by  the  vowels.  The  sense  intended  in 
each  case  is  indicated,  however,  not  by  inserting  written 
signs  for  the  vowels,  but  by  the  connection,  or  else  it  is 
supplied  by  the  teacher,  as  this  was  primarily  designed 
for  oral  instruction.  Such  expressions  do  not  imply 
that  there  was  any  doubt  as  to  the  proper  reading,  or 
that  the  common  reading  required  correction.  They  are 
simply  an  ingenious  play  upon  words  in  order  to  con- 
nect ideas  with  a  passage  which  are  conceived  to  lie 
hid  in  its  letters,  however  remote  they  may  be  from 
the  sense  required  by  the  connection.  Sometimes 
indeed  these  multiple  senses  can  only  be  obtained  by 
changing  the  letters  as  well  as  the  vowels  of  the 
word. 

Of  a  similar  import  is  the  singular  phrase  "  There  is 
a  mother  of  Scripture^  and  there  is  a  mother  of  tradi- 
tion." Different  opinions  are  supported  by  a  passage 
containing  a  word  which  written  without  vowels  is 
ambiguous.  Of  one  it  is  said:  "There  is  a  mother  of 
Scripture,"  i.e.,  its  source  is  the  text  in  its  established 
meaning,  as  commonly  and  properly  read.  Of  the 
other:  "  There  is  a  mother  of  tradition,"  i.e.,  its  source 
is  a  pronunciation  different  from  that  currently  accepted, 
but  which  some  ingenious  rabbi  has  devised,  and  others 
have  received  it  from  him.  It  is  then  added,  "  There  is  a 
mother  of  Scripture,  and  there  is  a  mother  of  tradition," 
i.e.,  both  views  are  admissible  and  included  in  the  mul- 
tiple sense  of  Scripture.  The  ambiguity  arising  from 
the  absence  of  vowels  opens  the  way  for  different  con- 
clusions from  the  same  words,  and  a  certain  degree  of 

senses  from  it,  it  is  allowable  in  this  way  by  the  change  of  vowels, 
consonants,  and  sounds  to  bend  and  twist  the  words  of  Scripture, 
provided  no  sense  is  produced  contrary  to  the  word  of  God  and  the 
analogy  of  faith." 


70  GENERAL  INTRODUCTION 

validity  is  attached  to  each,  although  they  are  not  held 
to  be  of  equal  authority.^ 

'  In  regard  to  the  significance  of  these  Talmudic  phrases  Hupfeld 
says,  ubi  supra,  p.  554 :  "  I  must  here  protest  in  advance  against  the 
utterly  perverted  point  of  view  under  which  these  expressions  are  com- 
monly put,  as  if  they  contained  real,  i.e.,  critical  doubts  and  contro- 
versies about  the  true  reading  of  the  ambiguous  text;  and,  as  Gesenius 
expresses  himself,  '  transported  us  to  a  time  when  they  began  to  feel 
more  pressingly  the  ambiguity  of  an  unpointed  text. '  This  has  been  long 
since  contradicted  in  the  case  of  the  first  formula  '  do  not  read  so,  but 
so ; '  and  it  has  been  shown  as  well  from  the  internal  character  of  these 
readings  as  from  the  explanations  of  the  Talmud  and  the  later  rabbis, 
that  we  have  here  no  critical  emendations  before  us,  but  simply  a  play 
upon  particular  words  in  the  text,  and  twisting  them  in  order  to  con- 
nect with  them  certain  dogmas,  fancies,  witty  applications,  and  the 
like ;  a  procedure  that  in  the  Herraeneutics  of  the  Talmud  itself  is 
not  reckoned  a  valid  hermeneutical  proof,  but  a  spurious  or  second- 
ary proof,  and  merely  has  for  its  object  to  fix  those  fancies  iij  the  mem- 
ory by  a  memorial  word,  i.e.,  by  attaching  them  to  a  word  in  the  text 
of  the  Bible.  Not  only  vowels,  but  also  consonants,  are  often  changed 
in  a  manner  so  contrary  to  all  the  sense  and  connection,  that  they  can- 
not for  this  reason  be  regarded  as  real  readings. " 

And  p.  5G1  :  "  The  readings  designated  by  the  term  '  tradition'  are 
consequently  in  every  instance  not  critical,  but  simply  theologico- 
juridical  variants;  i.e.,  in  the  Talmudic  mode  of  teaching  used  as 
means  of  proving  controverted  dogmas  by  transmitted  arbitrary  modi- 
fications of  the  church  reading  in  words  where  the  original  as  written 
— a  priori  considered,  i.e.,  apart  from  the  connection,  grammar,  and 
tradition — would  naturally  lead  to  another  readmg." 

And  p.  564 :  "  The  text  of  the  Bible  is  thus  a  basis  of  infinitely 
manifold  meaning  (the  forty-nine- fold  or  seventy-fold  face  of  the  law), 
and  therein  precisely  consists  its  divine  character  and  pre-eminence. 
This  pre-eminence  is  principally  based  upon  the  absence  of  all  vowel 
signs ;  so  that  the  naked  text  was  the  only  admissible  and  legitimate 
form,  not  only  for  use  in  worship  (for  synagogue  manuscripts),  but  also 
for  learned  use  (Talmudic  and  Cabbalistic  argumentations).  So  little, 
therefore,  did  they  feel  the  need  of  reading  signs,  that  on  the  contrary 
the  ambiguity  of  the  text  was  an  indispensable  need  for  their  aims  in 
teaching,  and  an  essential  condition  of  the  lauded  manifoldness  of  its 
sense.  The  true  reading,  however,  was  in  no  wise  doubtful  on  this 
account,  but  stands  already  so  firm  in  tradition,  that  it  agrees  through- 
out with  our  modern  text." 


HEBREW   LETTERS   AND    VOWELS  71 

It  thus  appears  that  Hebrew  was  written  without  the 
vowel  points  when  the  Septuagint  was  translated,  in  the 
time  of  Origen  in  the  third  century  A.D.,  in  that  of  Je- 
rome in  the  fourth  century,  and  down  to  the  comple- 
tion of  the  Talmud  at  the  close  of  the  fifth  centur3^ 
There  is  documentary  evidence  of  their  existence  at 
the  beginning  of  the  tenth  century.  A  manuscript  of 
the  latter  prophets  written  a.d.  916,  and  discovered  by 
Firkowitch  in  1839,  is  pointed  with  the  vowels  through- 
out, though  with  a  different  system  of  notation  from 
that  now  in  use.  That  the  writer  was  likewise  familiar 
with  the  present  system  is  shown  by  his  frequent  use 
of  it  in  the  marginal  notes.  Aaron  ben  Moses  ben 
Asher,  who  lived  in  the  first  half  of  the  tenth  century, 
and  his  contemporary  Moses  ben  David  ben  Naphtali, 
each  prepared  a  copy  of  the  Hebrew  Bible  with  vowels 
and  accents ;  that  of  the  former  was  particularly  prized 
for  its  accuracy,  and  was  widely  accepted  as  the  stand- 
ard. Ben  Asher  (as  he  is  commonly  called)  is  said  to 
have  belonged  to  a  noted  family  of  punctuators,  his  an- 
cestors being  traced  back  for  five  generations,^  which 
must  certainly  reach  back  into  the  eighth  century. 
The  Massora,  a  vast  collection  of  critical  notes  on  the 
Hebrew  text,  is  largely  concerned  with  the  vowels. 
Some  of  its  earlier  portions,  such  as  the  K'ri  and 
K'thibh,  which  relate  merely  to  the  consonants,  are  al- 
ready noticed  in  Jerome  and  the  Talmud.  But  of  the 
subsequent  additions  made  to  it  in  the  course  of  cen- 
turies there  are  unfortunately  no  means  of  fixing  the 
date.  It  can  only  be  said  on  the  basis  of  the  facts 
stated  above  that  the  vowel  signs  must  have  been  intro- 
duced between  the  sixth  and  eighth  centuries.  This 
was  probably  in  imitation  of  the  Syrians,  whose  ac- 
quaintance with  Greek  learning  led  them  to  feel  the  de- 
'  Baer  and  Strack's  Dikduke  Ilat'amin,  p.  x. 


72  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

fects  of  a  purely  consonantal  alphabet  and  to  supple- 
ment it  by  vowel  signs. 

The  precise  relation  of  the  two  systems  of  points 
above  mentioned  has  not  yet  been  ascertained.  In  both 
of  them  a  and  6  are  represented  by  the  same  sign,  i 
by  a  single  dot,  e  by  two  dots  placed  horizontally ; 
Daghesh  has  the  same  double  office  and  is  indicated  in 
the  same  way,  and  vowels  are  abbreviated  by  being 
combined  with  the  symbol  denoting  the  absence  of  a 
vowel.  The  differences  are  equally  remarkable  and  are 
suggestive  of  distinct  modes  of  conceiving  and  dealing 
with  the  subject.^  They  must  consequently  have  had 
to  some  extent  a  common  origin,  and  then  been  sepa- 
rately developed  from  that  point.  The  system  now  in 
use  was  wrought  out  in  the  schools  at  Tiberias.  The 
other  has  been  called  the  Babylonish  system  on  the 
supposition  that  it  was  the  product  of  the  schools  in 
Babylonia ;  this  has  in  its  favor  that  the  principal  man- 
uscript containing  it  generally  follows  the  Babylonish 

^  In  the  recently  discovered  system  u  is  represented  by  a  vertical 
stroke  which  may  be  intended  for  a  diminutive  Vav,  a  by  a  figure  re- 
sembling the  letter  Ayin,  and  a  or  6  by  what  may  possibly  be  a  dimin- 
utive Aleph.  There  is  no  sign  corresponding  to  Seghol ;  its  place  is 
taken  by  Pattahh,  Hhirik  or  Tsere,  according  as  it  is  derived  from  one 
or  the  other.  O,  which  is  represented  by  two  dots  placed  vertically, 
never  occurs  in  a  closed  or  dagheshed  syllable  without  the  accent.  All 
the  other  vowels  are  used  in  three  forms  according  to  the  nature  of  the 
syllable  in  which  they  are  found  : 

1.  In  open  syllables,  as  well  as  in  closed  or  Dagheshed  syllables 
with  the  accent  or  half-accent  (Methegh),  the  vowels  appear  in  their 
simple  form  with  no  added  sign  of  shortening, 

2.  In  unaccented  closed  syllables,  or  in  place  of  a  compound  Sh'va 
(which  is  reckoned  a  distinct  syllable),  a  horizontal  stroke  answering 
to  Sh'va  is  drawn  under  the  vowel  sign. 

3.  In  Dagheshed  syllables  the  horizontal  stroke  is  drawn  above  the 
vowel  sign.  The  accents  are  less  numerous  than  in  the  other  system, 
and  their  consecution  not  so  uniform.  See  Pinsker,  Einleitung  in  das 
Babylonische-Hebraische  Punktationssystem. 


HEBREW   LETTERS   AND   VOWELS  73 

readings  where  they  differ  from  those  of  Palestine,  and 
that  the  Babylonish  doctors  developed  their  Talmud 
and  Targums  after  a  method  of  their  own,  and  may 
have  done  the  same  in  respect  to  these  accessories  of 
the  sacred  text.  Others  prefer  a  designation  which  in- 
volves no  theory  of  its  origin,  and  call  it  the  superlinear 
system  from  one  of  its  obvious  and  striking  peculiari- 
ties, that  all  the  vowel  signs  are  placed  above  the  letters. 
The  Tiberian  system,  which  was  adopted  in  Palestine, 
was  the  most  minutely  elaborated,  and  finally  super- 
seded its  rival  altogether,  though  both  w^ere  for  a  time 
used  together  in  certain  places,  as  is  shown  by  manu- 
scripts containing  the  Hebrew  text  wdth  a  Targum,  the 
former  having  the  Tiberian  punctuation  and  the  latter 
the  superlinear.  The  superlinear  is  found  as  late  as 
the  thirteenth  century  in  a  treatise  of  Maimonides. 

When  the  opinion  so  strenuously  maintained  of  the 
antiquity  and  inspiration  of  the  vowel  points  was  set 
aside  by  the  evidences  of  their  real  origin,  many  swung 
to  the  opposite  extreme  of  entirely  rejecting  and  disre- 
garding them  as  not  only  a  human  and  unauthorized,  but 
a  very  erroneous,  addition  to  the  inspired  text.  And  to 
this  the  silly  trifling  of  the  rabbis  generally  and  the 
follies  of  the  Talmud  gave  no  little  color.  If  the  vowel 
points  were  from  the  same  hands,  it  was  contended  that 
they  must  be  utterly  unreliable  and  worthless.  Bibles 
were  accordingly  printed  without  the  points ;  grammars, 
lexicons,  and  commentaries  were  prepared  with  no  refer- 
ence to  them,  and  no  regard  for  their  authority. 

A  careful  and  extended  examination  of  the  whole 
matter  has,  however,  led  scholars  to  the  adoption  of  a 
medium  course.  The  points  are  not  inspired,  but  they 
are  substantially  correct.  The  signs  were  the  invention 
of  the  Massorites,  but  the  pronunciation  which  they 
yield  was  not.     By  a  most  careful  and  minute  system  of 


74  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

notation  they  have  recorded  the  precise  sounds  of  all  the 
words  as  a  steadfast  tradition  had  conveyed  it  to  them. 
There  is  nothing  in  the  system  like  rabbinical  trifling 
or  cabbalistic  mysteries.  The  text  itself  is  left  un- 
touched, and  is  wholly  unafi'ected  by  the  addition  of 
these  accessories,  which  furnish  the  key  to  the  pronun- 
ciation and  remove  the  ambiguity  consequent  upon  the 
use  of  a  purely  consonantal  alphabet.  The  comparison 
of  the  kindred  dialects  lends  a  strong  confirmation  to 
the  accuracy  of  the  Massoretic  points.  The  pronuncia- 
tion of  Jerome  agrees  with  that  yielded  by  the  points. 
That  of  Origen  and  the  Septuagint  diifer  from  it,  but 
they  do  so  by  system  and  by  rule,  as  it  might  be  ex- 
pected that  a  provincial  pronunciation  would.  And 
Jerome  informs  us  that  the  Hebrew  was  differently  pro- 
nounced in  different  countries.  The  Septuagint  and 
Origen  give  the  Alexandrian  pronunciation;  the  Mas- 
soretic points  that  of  Palestine,  which  doubtless  best 
represents  the  true  original  sounds.  It  would  be  in  the 
last  degree  unwise  to  refuse  such  an  invaluable  aid  be- 
cause it  is  of  later  origin  than  the  letters  themselves. 
The  points  form  what  may  be  called  a  traditional  com- 
mentary upon  the  text,  conscientiously  noted  down  by 
learned  Jewish  scholars  under  circumstances  peculiarly 
favorable  for  a  correct  understanding  of  it.  They  are  a 
most  important  help,  which  ought  not  to  be  slighted ; 
and  though  they  may  be  departed  from  in  cases  of  evi- 
dent necessity,  they  should  be  adhered  to  unless  there 
are  very  good  reasons  for  not  doing  so. 

The  accents  obviously  belong  to  the  same  system 
with  the  vowels,  and  must  have  been  introduced  at  the 
same  time,  however  the  strife  may  be  decided  as  to  their 
original  design,  whether  they  were  intended  to  guide  in 
cantillation  or  to  serve  as  marks  of  interpunction. 


HEBREW   MANUSCRIPTS 

The  Scriptures  in  their  original  form  are  preserved 
in  manuscripts.  Hebrew  manuscripts  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment are  neither  so  numerous  nor  so  ancient  as  the 
Greek  manuscripts  of  the  Scriptures,  but  there  is  much 
less  divergence  among  them  owing  to  the  extreme  care 
with  which  they  have  been  transcribed. 

Hebrew  manuscripts  are  of  two  classes,  those  for 
synagogue  use  and  those  for  the  use  of  private  persons. 
Synagogue  manuscripts  contain  the  portions  of  the  Old 
Testament  selected  for  public  reading  in  the  worship  of 
the  synagogue.  The  law,  which  is  read  in  regular 
course,  is  upon  one  manuscript.  The  prophets,  both 
the  former  and  the  latter,  or  the  historical  books  of  the 
second  division  of  the  Hebrew  canon,  as  well  as  those 
which  are  strictly  prophetical,  are  not  read  in  course. 
But  lessons  are  selected  from  them  for  each  Sabbath, 
called  Haphtaroth,^  corresponding  with  the  lessons  of 

1  According  to  Frankel,  Vorstudien  zu  der  Septuaginta,  pp.  50,  51, 
the  Haphtara  is  so  called  from  HQB  to  open^  since  it  was  originally 
the  opening  part  of  the  service.  The  ancient  custom  was  to  deliver 
an  explanatory  discourse  as  introductory  to  the  reading  of  the  law.  In 
this  discourse  the  speaker  included  some  passage  selected  at  will  from 
other  parts  of  Scripture,  commonly  from  the  prophets,  which  was 
germane  to  the  lesson  of  the  day.  This  crystallized  into  a  regular 
series  of  lessons  from  the  prophets  read  prior  to  the  section  from  the 
law.  Subsequently  this  order  was  reversed,  but  the  name  Haphtara 
was  retained,  Zunz,  Gottesdienstliche  Vortrage,  p.  5,  gives  a  pre- 
cisely opposite  explanation  of  the  term.  He  holds  the  common  opin- 
ion that  the  lesson  from  the  prophets  was  called  Haphtara  (cessation 

75 


76  GENERAL  INTRODUCTION 

the  law  called  Parashoth  ;  these  are  written  upon  a  sep- 
arate manuscript.  Then  the  Book  of  Esther,  which  is 
read  at  the  feast  of  Purim,  and  the  rest  of  the  live 
small  books,  called  Megilloth,  or  Rolls,  the  Song  of 
Solomon,  Ecclesiastes,  Ruth,  and  Lamentations,  which 
are  severally  assigned  to  fast  or  feast  days,  are  written 
separately. 

Synagogue  manuscripts  are  upon  rolls,  written  with 
the  greatest  care  and  conformably  to  rules  prescribed  in 
the  Talmud,  which  are  needlessly  and  superstitiously 
minute.  They  must  be  written  upon  parchment  pre- 
pared from  the  skin  of  a  clean  animal,  and  for  this  spe- 
cial purpose,  in  the  square  letter,  without  vowels  or  ac- 
cents,^ with  black  ink,  in  columns,  or  in  the  two  Songs 
of  Moses,  Ex.  xv.,  Deut.  xxxii.,  in  parallel  clauses.  No 
word  nor  even  letter  must  be  written  without  the  scribe 
first  looking  each  time  at  the  original  which  he  is  copy- 
ing. The  extraordinary  points  and  the  letters  of  un- 
usual size,  position,  or  form  were  carefully  copied.  The 
manuscript  must  be  corrected  within  thirtj^  days  after 
it  was  written,  and  should  four  errors  be  found  on  any 
page  it  was  condemned.  Very  few  of  these  rolls  have 
come  into  the  possession  of  Christians,  since  they  are 
buried  or  destroyed  by  the  Jews  when  they  become  old 
to  save  them  from  the  danger  of  desecration.  The  place 
of  sepulture  for  manuscripts  and  other  sacred  objects 
which  are  no  longer  fit  for  use  is  called  the  Gheniza 

or  dismission),  because  with  it  the  services  of  the  day  were  concluded, 
and  then  the  congregation  was  dismissed. 

'  It  is  stated  by  Eichhorn,  Einleitung,  4te  Ausg.,  p  462,  that  some 
few  manuscripts  have  a  double  text,  one  pointed  and  one  unpointed 
side  by  side;  the  unpointed  as  prescribed  for  the  scribe  of  the  law, 
the  pointed  in  order  to  aid  the  public  reader  in  difficult  places  which 
he  did  not  understand,  and,  therefore,  did  not  know  how  to  read  and 
pronounce  correctly. 


HEBKEW   MANUSCRIPTS  77 

The  private  manuscripts  contain  sometimes,  though 
rarely,  the  entire  Old  Testament,  more  commonly  only 
a  part,  sometimes  only  a  single  book.  These  are  occa- 
sionally written  upon  rolls,  but  for  the  most  part  they 
are  in  the  shape  of  books  of  various  sizes,  folio,  4to, 
8vo,  and  12mo.  Those  that  are  written  in  the  square 
character  are  mostly  pointed  with  the  vowels  and  ac- 
cents. The  letters  were  all  written  first  and  the  points 
added  subsequently,  sometimes  by  a  different  person 
and  generally  with  a  different  pen  and  ink.  A  large 
proportion  of  manuscripts  passed  through  several 
hands  in  the  course  of  their  preparation.  One  wrote 
the  consonants,  another  appended  the  vowels  and  K'ris, 
a  third  corrected  it,  a  fourth  added  the  Massora  and 
scholia,  and  perhaps  a  fifth  retouched  it  after  it  became 
defaced  by  age  or  use.  In  some  cases  several  of  these 
offices  were  performed  by  the  same  person,  and  it  is  so 
recorded  in  the  manuscript.  They  are  nearly  all  writ- 
ten with  black  ink,  the  initial  words  or  letters  being 
frequently  ornamented  and  the  margin  decorated  with 
figures  of  flowers,  trees,  or  animals.  The  material  is 
in  many  cases  parchment  or  prepared  skins,  more  fre- 
quently cotton  or  linen  paper.  The  prose  portions  are 
mostly  in  columns,  the  poetic  portions  in  clauses  or  par- 
allel members.  The  Hebrew  text  sometimes  stands 
alone,  but  is  often  associated  with  a  translation,  a  Tar- 
gum,  or  an  Arabic  or  some  other  version,  disposed  in 
alternate  columns,  or  written  with  the  text  in  alternate 
verses  or  lines,  or  in  the  margin  in  a  smaller  character. 
The  upper  and  lower  margin  often  contain  the  great 
Massora,  a  body  of  critical  traditions  concerning  the 
text,  sometimes  a  rabbinical  commentary,  prayers, 
psalms,  and  the  like.  The  outer  margin  is  for  correc- 
tions, scholia,  various  readings,  notices  of  the  legal  and 
prophetic  sections,  commentaries  of  the  rabbis,  etc.  The 


78  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

inner  margin,  i.e.,  the  space  between  the  cohimns,  is  de- 
voted to  the  K'ris  and  the  little  Massora.  A  space  is 
left  between  different  books,  but  not  between  the  two 
books  of  Samuel,  the  two  of  Kings,  the  two  of  Chroni- 
cles, nor  between  Ezra  and  Nehemiah.  In  the  arrange- 
ment of  the  books  a  few  manuscripts  follow  the  order 
of  the  Talmud,  others,  and  particularly  the  Spanish, 
adopt  that  of  the  Massora,  but  there  is  great  diversity, 
especially  in  the  Hagiographa.^  There  is  often  a  sub- 
scription at  the  end  of  the  manuscript,  stating  the  name 
of  the  transcriber  and  that  of  the  punctuator,  the  date 
of  transcription  and  sundry  other  matters  pertaining 
to  it. 

Some  private  manuscripts  are  written  in  the  rabbini- 
cal character,  mostly  upon  paper,  without  either  the 
points  or  the  Massora,  and  with  many  abbreviations  ; 
they  are  of  little  value  and  of  comparatively  modern 
date. 

The  determination  of  the  age  of  Hebrew  manuscripts 
is  attended  with  great,  and  in  many  cases  with  insuper- 
able, difficult}^  In  other  palseographic  investigations, 
as  in  Greek  and  Latin,  the  shape  of  the  letters,  which 
varied  at  different  periods,  supplies  an  important  crite- 
rion. But  in  Hebrew  no  aid  can  be  derived  from  this 
quarter.  With  unimportant  variations  the  square  letter 
is  the  same  in  all  existing  manuscripts.  The  Jcavs  in- 
deed distinguish  what  they  call  the  Tam  and  the  Velsh 
letter.  The  Tam  is  so  called  from  a  person  of  that 
name,  or  more  probably  in  its  appellative  sense  ''the 
perfect  letter,"  and  is  found  on  the  rolls  of  the  German 
and  Polish  Jews.  The  Velsh  character  is  more  common 
in  those  of  the  Spanish  and  Oriental  Jews.  But  the 
letters  are  no  sure  guide  even  as  to  the  country  in  which 
the  manuscripts  were  prepared.  The  most  reliable 
'  See  the  volume  on  the  Canon,  pp.  206,  207. 


HEBREW    MANUSCRIPTS  79 

help  in  settling  the  age  of  manuscripts  is  found  in  the 
subscriptions,  which  have  been  before  alluded  to.  But 
unfortunately  these  are  wanting  in  the  majority  of  cases  ; 
and  when  they  do  exist,  it  is  not  always  easy  to  under- 
stand them.  It  is  often  uncertain  from  which  era  they 
are  to  be  reckoned,  whether  from  the  creation,  the  era 
of  the  Seleucidse,  the  destruction  of  the  second  temple, 
or  some  other  point  of  time.  There  is  an  ambiguity  also 
in  the  mode  of  writing  numbers  ;  it  is  usual  to  omit  the 
thousands,  and  sometimes  even  the  hundreds.  And  in 
some  cases  the  statements  are  misleading,  whether  from 
an  unintentional  error  in  recording  the  number,  or  from 
deliberate  falsification  with  a  view  of  enhancing  the  value 
of  the  manuscript  by  making  it  appear  older  than  it 
actually  was. 

Some  scholars  have  proposed  a  division  of  MSS.  into 
Massoretic  and  non-Massoretic,  meaning  by  the  former 
those  which  follow  the  text  as  corrected  and  fixed  by  the 
revisions  and  labors  of  the  Massorites ;  and  by  the  latter 
such  as  contain  a  text  which  did  not  pass  through  their 
hands,  but  has  come  down  independently  of  them.  The 
suggestion,  however,  is  futile.  All  the  MSS.,  without  ex- 
ception, represent  the  Massoretic  text  with  greater  or  less 
accuracy.  This  text  was  not  the  creation  of  the  Masso- 
rites ;  they  simply  perpetuated  what  they  found  already 
in  existence,  and  placed  such  guards  about  it  as  might 
forever  preserve  it  from  corruption  or  even  the  minutest 
change.  Hebrew  MSS.  have  been  obtained  from  Jews  in 
India  and  in  China,  and  when  collated  have  been  found 
to  yield  the  same  text  as  that  in  our  copies  of  the  Bible. 

Mention  is  made  in  Jewish  writings  of  the  twelfth  and 
thirteenth  centuries  and  in  the  margins  of  MSS.  of  cer- 
tain ancient  codices  which  were  held  in  high  repute 
for  their  accuracy,  and  regarded  as  standards  from 
>vhich  others  were  transcribed,  or  by  which  they  were 


80  GENERAL  INTRODUCTION 

corrected.  Such  were  tKe  codex  of  Hillel,  that  of  Ben 
Asher,  that  of  Ben  Naphtali,  that  of  Jericho,  of  Sinai,  of 
Israel,  Sanbuki  and  Taggin.  These  have  all  perished, 
with  the  possible  exception  of  the  codex  of  Ben  Asher, 
and  little  is  known  of  them  now.  Great  pains  have  been 
taken,  however,  to  gather  from  all  available  sources  the 
various  readings  which  are  attributed  to  them. 

The  codex  Ben  Asher,  so  called  because  punctuated 
by  Aaron  ben  Moses  ben  Asher,  who  has  before  been 
mentioned  as  flourishing  in  the  former  half  of  the  tenth 
century,  is  reported  to  be  still  preserved  at  Aleppo. 
And  a  copy  of  the  prophets  written  without  vowels  by 
Moses  ben  Asher  (the  father  of  Aaron),  a.d.  895,  is  said 
to  be  in  the  Karaite  synagogue  at  Cairo. 

One  of  the  oldest  manuscripts  whose  date  is  certainly 
known  is  that  of  the  latter  prophets,  now  in  the  library 
at  St.  Petersburg,  formerly  belonging  to  the  Society  of 
History  and  Antiquities  at  Odessa,  first  described  by 
Pinner  ^  in  1845  and  subsequently  published  in  f  ac-sim- 
ile  under  the  direction  of  Professor  H.  L.  Strack.  It  is 
remarkable  as  having  the  superlinear  punctuation ; 
part  of  the  last  chapter  of  Zechariah  and  of  the  first  of 
Malachi  are  left  unpointed.  It  is  written  on  parchment 
and  in  small  folio ;  there  are  two  columns  on  each  page, 
with  the  Massora  in  the  margins.  The  subscription  is 
dated  a.d.  956,  and  states  that  the  MS.  was  written  forty 
years  before,  i.e.,  a.d.  916. 

Pinner  further  describes  in  the  Odessa  collection  a 
leathern  roll  of  the  Pentateuch,  intended  for  synagogue 
use  and  therefore  without  the  vowels,  accents,  or  Masso- 
ra. It  was  brought  to  Odessa  from  Derbend  in  Da- 
ghestan,  and  consists  of  45  pieces,  is  56  ells  long  and 
an  ell  broad.     According  to  the  subscription  it  was  cor- 

'  Prospectus  der  Odessaer  Gesellschaft  gehorenden  Heb.  Manu- 
scripte. 


HEBREW    MANUSCRIPTS  81 

rected  A.D.  580,  with  the  implication  that  it  was  written 
still  earlier.  Two  others  containing  fragments  of  the 
Pentateuch  are  dated  respectively  a.d.  843  and  881. 

Of  all  the  manuscripts  collated  by  Kennicott  that 
which  he  esteemed  the  oldest  is  numbered  590,  and 
contains  the  prophets  and  Hagiographa.  It  was  written, 
according  to  its  subscription,  a.d.  1018  or  1019,  and  is 
in  the  Imperial  Library  at  Vienna.  That  which  he 
numbered  154  is  in  Carlsruhe.  It  is  called  the  Reuch- 
lin  Manuscript,  is  dated  a.d.  1106,  and  contains  the 
prophets.  No.  126,  a  manuscript  of  the  latter  prophets, 
which  Kennicott  thought  should  be  assigned  to  the  be- 
ginning of  the  fifteenth  century,  is  by  Dr.  Margoliouth 
referred  to  the  sixth,  and  by  Heidenheim  between  the 
sixth  and  the  eighth,  and  by  Strack  not  earlier  than  the 
latter  part  of  the  eighth  century.^ 

The  manuscripts  which  De  Rossi  thought  the  oldest 
in  his  collection  were  some  fragments  of  the  Pentateuch, 
which  he  rescued  from  the  Gheniza  at  Lucca ;  one  of 
these  he  at  first  attributed  to  the  eighth  century,  but 
subsequently  said  that  it  might  perhaps  belong  to  the 
ninth  or  at  least  be  quite  ancient. 

In  a  collection  made  by  Firkowitch,  a  Karaite  Jew, 
and  sold  to  the  library  at  St.  Petersburg,  one  fragment 
of  the  Pentateuch  was  dated  A.D.  489,  and  another 
A.D.  639,  while  other  manuscripts  are  attributed  to  the 
eighth,  ninth,  and  tenth  centuries.^ 

'  Dr.  Margoliouth  reports  having  seen  a  MS.  in  the  possession  of  a 
Jewish  family  in  Damascus,  which  according  to  a  note  upon  its  title-page 
belonged  to  the  third  century;  and  anotlier  in  the  neighborhood  of  the 
city,  which  was  reputed  to  have  been  written  in  the  time  of  the  Macca- 
bees, and  the  oldest  sheets  of  which  he  Avas  disposed  to  refer  to  the 
sixth  century  a.d. 

'  A  very  complete  account  both  of  the  lost  standard  codices  and  of 
the  oldest  extant  MSS  is  given  by  Strack  in  his  Prolegomena  Critica, 
1873,  pp.  14-55. 

6 


VI 

VERSIONS 

The  Septuagint 

The  Old  Testament  has  been  preserved  to  us  not  only 
in  its  original  language,  but  in  other  languages  likewise 
into  which  it  was  early  translated.  There  are  four  ver- 
sions of  the  Old  Testament,  which  are  both  ancient  and 
immediate,  or  in  other  words  were  made  before  the 
period  of  the  Massorites  and  from  the  original  text. 
These  are  the  Greek  Septuagint,  the  Aramean  Targums, 
the  Syriac  Peshito,  and  the  Latin  Yulgate.  They  may 
be  regarded  as  severally  representing  distinct  tradi- 
tions of  the  sacred  text,  the  Septuagint  that  of  the  Alex- 
andrine Jews,  the  Targums  that  of  the  Jews  of  Palestine, 
the  Peshito  that  of  the  Oriental  Church,  and  the  Vul- 
gate that  of  the  Western  Church.  Of  these,  two  extend 
likewise  over  the  New  Testament,  viz.,  the  Peshito  and 
the  Vulgate.  The  Septuagint  and  the  Targums  are  con- 
fined to  the  Old  Testament.  A  version  which  is  made 
not  from  the  original,  but  from  a  previous  version,  is 
said  to  be  mediate.  There  are  several  versions  which 
are  immediate  in  the  New  Testament  and  mediate  in 
the  Old,  as  the  Latin  Itala  and  the  Hexaplaric  Syriac 
version,  both  of  which  are  made  throughout  from  the 
Greek  Bible,  that  is,  from  the  original  in  the  New 
Testament  and  from  the  Septuagint  version  in  the  Old. 
Others  are  mediate  in  both  Testaments,  as  the  Anglo- 
Saxon,  which  was  made  from  the  Latin  Vulgate. 

The  first  language  into  which  the  Old  Testament  was 


THE   SEPTUAGINT  83 

translated  was  the  Greek,  and  the  first  translation  made 
of  it,  or  indeed  of  any  work  whatever,  was  the  Septua- 
gint.i  Much  obscurity  clouds  the  question  of  its  origin. 
The  earliest  tradition  on  the  subject  is  found  in  a  letter 
still  extant,  which  purports  to  have  been  written  by  a 
certain  Aristeas,'^  occupying  an  important  position  at 
the  court  of  King  Ptolemy  Philadelphus,  to  his  brother 
Philocrates.  In  this  it  is  related  that  Ptolemy  Phila- 
delphus was  anxious  to  obtain  for  his  library  at  Alexan- 
dria copies  of  the  laws  of  all  nations,  and  was  advised 
by  his  librarian,  Demetrius  Phalereus,  to  procure  the 
Jewish  law.  Whereupon  the  king  ordered  the  release 
of  all  the  Jews  that  were  in  bondage  in  his  dominions, 
and  despatched  an  embassy  with  costly  presents  for  the 
temple  at  Jerusalem  and  a  large  sum  for  sacrifices,  to- 
gether with  a  letter  to  the  high-priest,  Eleazar,  asking 
that  a  copy  of  the  law  should  be  sent  him  with  six 
men  from  each  tribe  competent  to  translate  it.  In 
compliance  with  this  request  the  law  was  splendidly 
written  in  gold  letters  and  sent  along  with  seventy- 
two  men  well  skilled  in  Hebrew  and  Greek.  They 
arrived  on  the  same  day  that  a  victory  was  gained 
over  Antigonus  by  the  king's  fleet,  and  were  re- 
ceived with  great  ceremony,  lodged  sumptuously  in  the 
palace,  and  a  feast  of  seven  days  was  held  in  their 
honor,  during  which  they  severally  astonished  the  king 
by  their  wise  answers   to  his  questions.     A  splendid 

'  According  to  a  statement  by  Aristobulus,  a  Jewish  writer,  who  is 
said  to  have  flourished  in  the  reign  of  Ptolemy  Philometor,  181-146 
B.C.,  which  is  preserved  by  Clemens  Alexandrinus  and  Eusebius,  a  pre- 
vious translation  of  the  law  was  made  before  the  Persian  domination, 
and  Pythagoras,  Socrates,  and  Plato  borrowed  some  of  their  ideas 
from  it.  But  this  has  no  other  support,  and  has  little  intrinsic  proba- 
bility. 

^  ^lian,  in  his  history,  speaks  of  an  Aristaeus,  coeval  with  Ptolemy 
Philadelphus,  who  was  one  of  the  chief  nobles  tliat  governed  Syria 
under  King  Antiochus. — Hody,  De  Bibliorum  Textibus,  p.  2. 


84  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

house  on  an  island  was  then  assigned  them  for  their 
labors,  where  they  completed  the  translation  in  joint 
session  in  seventy-two  days.  Their  finished  work  was 
then  read  to  the  assembled  Jews,  and  elicited  from  them 
the  highest  applause  and  unanimous  approval ;  and  a 
solemn  curse  was  pronounced  upon  anyone  who  should 
ever  alter  what  was  so  accurately  and  sacredly  done. 
The  king  was  highly  delighted  with  the  issue,  and  filled 
with  admiration  of  the  law,  and  dismissed  the  trans- 
lators with  rich  presents  for  themselves  and  for  the 
high-priest. 

Aristobulus  speaks  of  the  law  as  translated  under  the 
direction  of  Demetrius  Phalereus  in  the  reign  of  Ptol- 
emy Philadelphus,  but  gives  no  further  details  of  the 
matter.  It  is  disputed  whether  he  is  to  be  regarded  as 
an  independent  witness  to  the  existence  of  such  a  trans- 
action, or  simply  repeats  it  on  the  authority  of  the  letter 
above  referred  to.  Josephus  and  several  of  the  Chris- 
tian fathers  refer  to  Aristeas  and  credit  his  story. 
Philo  believed  that  the  translators  were  inspired  in  the 
execution  of  their  task,  and  says  that  a  festival  was 
annually  observed  on  the  Island  of  Pharos  in  commem- 
oration of  their  work.  The  story  was  subsequently  em- 
bellished with  miraculous  features.  According  to  Justin 
Martyr  the  seventy-two  translators  were  shut  up  in  as 
many  separate  cells  with  no  communication  with  each 
other,  and  severally  made  independent  translations, 
which,  when  compared,  were  found  to  agree  perfectly  in 
every  word  ;  and  he  says  that  he  saw  the  remains  of 
these  cells  when  visiting  Alexandria.  This  story  is  also 
found  in  Irenseus  and  several  of  the  Christian  fathers 
as  well  as  in  the  Babylonish  (but  not  the  Jerusalem) 
Talmud,^  and  contributed  not  a  little  to  the  veneration 

'  Both  of  the  Talmuds  speak  of  the  translators  and  specify  thirteen 
(Jerus.  Tal.)  or  fifteen  (Bab.  Tal.)  alterations  made  by  them  in  the  text. 


THE  SEPTUAGINT  85 

with  which  the  Septuagint  was  regarded.  Epiphanius 
repeats  the  same,  with  the  modification  that  the  trans- 
lators wore  put  in  thirty-six  cells,  two  in  each.  Justin 
Martyr  and  several  of  the  fathers  say  that  the  original 
copy  of  the  Septuagint  was  preserved  in  the  Serapeum 
in  their  day.  But  the  Alexandrine  library  was  burned 
in  the  war  of  Julius  Ciesar.  Cleopatra  founded  a  new 
library  in  the  Serapeum,  which  may  have  contained  a 
Greek  copy  of  the  Scriptures  that  was  mistaken  for  the 
autograph  of  the  LXX.  The  letter  of  Ai'isteas,  how- 
ever, contains  historical  mistakes  and  is  encumbered 
with  other  difficulties  which  prove  it  to  be  a  fabrication. 
Demetrius  was  never  in  charge  of  the  Alexandrian 
library.  He  was  a  distinguished  statesman  and  in  high 
favor  with  Ptolemy  Soter,  the  father  of  Philadelphus, 
but  incurred  the  displeasure  of  the  latter  by  endeavor- 
ing to  prevent  his  succession  to  the  throne  in  the  inter- 
est of  an  older  brother.  He  was  consequently  thrown 
into  prison  upon  the  death  of  Soter,  where  he  shortly 
died.  Philadelphus  gained  no  naval  victory  over  Anti- 
gonus,  such  as  is  reported  in  this  letter,  and  the  letter 
itself  is  not  mentioned  for  more  than  three  hundred 
years  after  it  purports  to  have  been  written.  The  Egyp- 
tian words  occurring  in  the  translation  show  that  it  was 
the  work  not  of  Palestine  but  Egyptian  Jews.  In  sev- 
eral instances  Hebrew  words  are  simply  transferred,  not 
translated,  showing  that  the  version  was  not  made  for 

only  four  of  which  are  found  in  the  Septuagint,  viz.,  Gen.  ii.  2;  Ex. 
iv.  20,  xii.  40;  Num.  xvi.  15. 

The  post-talraudic  tract  Sopherim  says  that  five  wise  men  translated 
the  law  for  Ptolemy.  This  has  led  to  the  opinion  that  the  work  was 
done  by  five  and  then  approved  by  either  the  whole  number  of  the 
translators  or  by  the  Sanhedrim,  or  else  that  two  separate  translations 
were  made  at  different  times,  one  by  five  translators,  another  by  sev- 
enty-two. But  Berliner  has  shown  that  the  number  five  is  a  textual 
error. — Targum  Onkelos,  II.,  p.  77  fif. 


86  GENERAL  INTRODUCTION 

the  king,  but  for  Egyptian  Jews,  in  whose  ordinary  par- 
lance these  words  were  familiarly  retained.  And  the 
version  is  of  unequal  merit  in  different  parts  of  the 
Pentateuch,  proving  that  it  was  not  prepared  by  one 
body  of  translators.  The  story  plainly  originated  in 
the  desire  to  exalt  the  dignity  of  the  Jewish  law  by 
representing  Ptolemy  Philadelphus  as  so  solicitous  to 
procure  it,  and  to  conciliate  greater  favor  for  the  ver- 
sion as  prepared  by  royal  command  and  having  the 
sanction  of  the  high -priest. 

The  version  was  doubtless  prepared  to  meet  the  wants 
of  the  Jewish  community  at  Alexandria.  Jews  emi- 
grated to  Egypt  shortly  after  the  destruction  of  Jeru- 
salem by  Nebuchadnezzar,  Jer.  xliii.  5-7,  xliv.  1. 
Large  numbers  established  themselves  in  Alexandria 
under  Alexander  the  Great  and  Ptolemy  Soter,  who 
gave  them  all  the  privileges  of  the  city  and  invited  them 
freely  to  settle  there.  As  they  gradually  lost  the  knowl- 
edge of  Hebrew,  the  law  ceased  to  be  understood  when 
read  in  the  original,  and  the  necessity  arose  of  having 
it  interpreted  in  a  language  with  which  they  were  famil- 
iar. The  law  was  doubtless  translated  into  Greek  in 
the  reign  of  Ptolemy  Philadelphus, ^  285-247  B.C.  This 
fact  preserved  by  tradition  forms  the  basis  of  the  story 
of  Aristeas,  and  is  necessary  to  account  for  its  ready 
acceptance  and  wide  prevalence.  The  name  Septuagint 
was  given  to  it  from  the  supposed  number  of  trans- 
lators, though  some  have  sought  to  explain  it  from  an 
imaginary  sanction  given  to  the  version  by  the  Jewish 
Sanhedrim  or  a  similar  body  in  Egypt  composed  of  sev- 
enty members. 

'  As  some  of  the  fathers  say  that  it  was  translated  in  the  reign  of 
Ptolemy  Soter,  Hody,  in  order  to  reconcile  these  different  statements, 
concludes  that  the  version  was  made  in  the  last  two  years  of  his  life, 
when  his  son  Philadelphus  was  associated  with  him  on  the  throne. 


THE   SEPTUAGINT  87 

The  rest  of  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament  were  trans- 
lated subsequently  at  different  times  and  by  different 
hands,  but  we  have  no  definite  information  respecting 
them.  It  would  seem  natural  to  suppose  that  there  j 
would  be  a  demand  for  the  prophets  in  the  first  in-  j 
stance,  as  they  came  to  be  included  with  the  law  in  the 
regular  worship  of  the  synagogue.  From  a  note  ap- 
pended to  the  Greek  version  of  the  Book  of  Esther,  it 
appears  that  it  was  translated  by  a  certain  Lysimachus 
of  Jerusalem,  and  brought  to  Egypt  in  the  fourth  year 
of  Ptolemy  Philometor,  185  B.C.  The  prologue  to  the 
Book  of  Ecclesiasticus  speaks  of  the  whole  Old  Testa- 
ment, "  the  law  and  the  prophets  and  the  rest  of  the 
books  "  as  already  translated  into  Greek  before  132  B.C. 
The  entire  version  received  the  name  given  to  the  part 
first  translated,  the  Septuagint ;  which  led  some  of  the  ' 
fathers  into  the  mistake  of  supposing  that  the  whole 
Old  Testament  was  translated  at  one  time  and  by  one 
body  of  translators. 

The  different  books  indicate  a  great  diversity  in  the 
character  and  ability  of  the  translators.  The  Penta-  * 
teuch,  particularly  in  Leviticus  and  Deuteronomy,  is  the  , 
best  for  general  fidelity.  The  version  of  Daniel  was  so 
incorrect  that  it  was  in  ecclesiastical  usage  laid  aside, 
and  another  version  by  Theodotion  substituted  in  its 
place.  Ecclesiastes  is  slavishly  literal,  to  the  disregard 
of  the  plainest  rules  of  Greek  construction.  In  Jere- 
miah and  Proverbs  especially,  and  sometimes  else- 
where, verses,  and  even  whole  chapters  are  transposed 
from  their  proper  order.  The  liberties  which  the 
translators  allowed  themselves  with  the  text  are  best 
explained  by  remembering  the  jmrpose  which  they  had 
in  view.  This  was  not  to  make  a  scholarly  version  with  i 
the  rigorous  accuracy  that  would  be  demanded  in  modern 
times,  but  to  make  the  meaning  intelligible  to  plain  and  ' 


88  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

ordinary  hearers  and  readers.  Hence  they  are  more 
concerned  to  reproduce  the  sense  than  the  form.  They 
do  not  hesitate  to  substitute  literal  for  tropical  expres- 
sions ^  (Gen.  xxxi.  20 ;  Num.  xxiv.  17 ;  Isa.  i.  25,  ix.  13), 
or  to  insert  words  or  clauses  by  way  of  explanation 
(Gen.  iv.  8,  xliv.  4,  5  ;  Ex.  iii.  8  ;  2  Sam.  vi.  10),  to 
change  rhetorical  interrogations  into  the  affirmation  or 
negation  implied  (Gen.  xxix.  15 ;  Ex.  viii.  22 ;  Deut.  v. 
22,  E.  Y.  25),  to  alter  the  person  and  number  without 
prejudice  to  the  sense  (Gen.  ix.  2,  6,  16,  xxxiii.  13),  or 
change  the  form  of  expression  (Gen.  vi.  5 ;  Ex.  iv.  13, 
xi.  8),  to  simplify  anthropomorphisms  in  order  to  guard 
against  conceptions  unworthy  of  the  deity  (Gen.  xviii. 
32 ;  Ex.  xxiv.  10 ;  Num.  xii.  8),  or  to  render  a  passage 
in  accord  with  current  interpretations  (Ex.  xii.  40). 
There  are  also  numerous  instances  of  mistranslation 
due  to  ignorance  or  negligence,  or  perhaps  inaccuracies 
or  defacements  of  the  manuscript  used  by  the  trans- 
lator. One  very  remarkable  variation  between  the  LXX. 
and  the  Hebrew  is  the  systematic  alteration  of  the  ages 
of  the  patriarchs  in  Gen.  v.  and  xi. 

'.  This  version  was  at  first  held  in  the  highest  venera- 
f  tion  by  the  Jews,  not  only  of  Alexandria  but  even  of 
Palestine,  as  is  shown  by  the  tales  which  gained  currency 
regarding  its  origin,  and  the  belief  which  many  enter- 
tained of  its  inspiration.  It  seems  to  have  been  read  in 
the  synagogues  of  the  Greek-speaking  Jews  even  in  Judea 
itself.^  It  was  used  by  Philo  exclusively,  and  by  Jose- 
phus  more  than  the  Hebrew.     The  apostles  and  evan- 

'  Frankel,  Vorstudien,  pp.  163-79. 

'  According  to  Frankel,  Vorstudien,  pp.  56,  58  note,  the  Greek  ver- 
sion did  not  supersede  the  reading  of  the  law  in  Hebrew,  but  was  used 
in  connection  with  it  by  the  interpreter.  It  is  expressly  said  of  the 
Book  of  Esther  that  it  might  be  read  in  any  language,  but  there  is  no 
intimation  in  Palestine  sources  that  the  Pentateuch  was  ever  read  in 
any  other  than  the  original. 


THE  SEPTUAGINT  89 

gelists,  in  citing  from  the  Old  Testament,  draw  from  it 
as  well  as  from  the  Hebrew.  The  Christians,  into 
whose  hands  it  passed  from  the  Jews,  received  it  with 
the  same  veneration  that  was  felt  for  it  by  the  latter. 
But  as  the  Christians  drew  their  weapons  from  this  ver- 
sion in  their  controversies  with  the  Jews,  the  latter  fell  ^ 
back  upon  the  original  Hebrew,  and  insisted  upon  the 
discrepancies  between  it  and  the  LXX. ;  and  their  for- 
mer favorable  opinion  of  this  version  was  changed  into 
a  settled  detestation,  which  is  thus  expressed  in  the 
Talmud  :  "  The  law  was  written  in  Greek  in  the  days  of 
King  Ptolemy,  and  darkness  was  upon  the  whole  earth 
for  three  days."  "  That  was  a  hard  day  for  Israel  like 
the  day  in  which  the  calf  was  made."  This  gave  rise  to 
mutual  recriminations.  The  Christians  charged  the 
Jews  with  corrupting  the  text  of  Scripture,  because 
they  did  not  receive  the  rendering  of  the  LXX.;  the 
Jews  retorted  the  charge  upon  the  Christians,  because 
they  did.  Hence  originated  several  new  translations 
with  the  design  of  giving  a  more  faithful  rendering  of 
the  Hebrew  text.  None  of  them,  however,  attained 
ecclesiastical  sanction  or  came  into  general  use  like 
the  Septuagint.  They  are  consequently  now  extant 
only  in  a  fragmentary  state.  The  principal  of  these 
versions  were  by  Aquila,  Theodotion,  and  Symma- 
chus. 

Aquila  seems  to  have  been  a  Jewish  proselyte  from 
Sinope  in  Pontus,  who  flourished,  according  to  Epi- 
phanius,^  about  a.d.  128.     His  version  is  known  to  have 

'  Epiphanius  gives  a  wholly  unreliable  account  of  Aquila.  He  says 
that  he  was  brother-in-law  of  the  Emperor  Hadrian,  and  was  by  him 
put  in  charge  of  the  work  of  restoring  Jerusalem  ;  while  there  he  be- 
came a  Christian,  but  on  account  of  his  pertinacious  adherence  to  his 
heathenish  ideas  and  practices,  was  excluded  from  the  church.  Where- 
upon he  abjured  the  Christian  religion  and  became  a  Jew.  It  has 
even  been   suspected   that  the   statement  that  lie  was  from  Pontus 


90  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

been  in  existence  before  a.d.  177,  when  it  is  spoken  of 
by  Irenseus.  It  is  slavishly  literal,  aiming  to  render 
every  word  and  particle,  regardless  of  elegance  and  of 
the  proprieties  of  the  Greek  language,  and  often  abso- 
lutely unintelligible.  It  retains  the  primary  sense  of 
words  where  derived  senses  are  intended,  follows  He- 
brew idioms  in  violation  of  Greek  usage,  manufactures 
words  in  the  endeavor  to  preserve  the  etymology,  di- 
vides words  into  syllables  and  translates  each  separate- 
ly, and  introduces  Hebrew  words  in  a  Greek  form ;  and 
this  though  there  are  indications  that  he  was  not  igno- 
rant of  good  style  and  was  familiar  with  classic  authors. 
This  version  is  accordingly  useful  in  questions  of  lexi- 
cography and  in  the  determination  of  the  text,  but  use- 
less in  hermeneutics  and  in  the  explanation  of  difficult 
places.  A  revised  edition  was  issued  by  the  author,  in 
which  the  same  principles  were  more  minutely  carried 
out.^  He  has  been  charged  with  perverting  Scripture 
in  order  to  obscui'e  its  testimony  to  Jesus  Christ,  but 
Jerome  acquits  him  of  any  such  design.  Aquila  ren- 
dered the  Hebrew  particle  n^5  by  avv  even  when  it  is 
simply  the  sign  of  the  definite  object :  thus  in  Gen.  i.  1, 
^Ev  KecpaXalo)  eKTCcrev  6  ^eo?  crvv  rov  ovpavov  koI  avv  rr)v 
yrjv.  Jerome,  who  often  praises  his  rigorous  accuracy, 
yet  says  of  his  attempt  to  reproduce  the  etymology  of 
words:  "  Quis  enim  pro  frumento  et  vino  et  oleo  possit 
vel  legere  vel  intelligere  ^^eO/xa,  oirwpia-fxoVy  ariXTrvorrjra, 
quod  nos  possumus  dicere  ficsionem,  pomationemque  et 
splendentiam  ?  "  According  to  Jerome  he  was  a  pupil  of 
Kabbi  Akiba,  who  taught  from  a.d.  95  to  135,  which 

originated  in  his  being  confounded  with  the  Aquila  spoken  of  in  Acts 
xviii.  2.     According  to  the  Jerusalem  Talmud  his  translation  was  ap- 
proved by  R.  Eliezer  and  R.  Joshua,  who  lived  near  the  close  of  the 
first  century,  or  by  their  pupil  R.  Akiba. 
*  See  Field's  Hexapla,  p.  xvi.  ff. 


THE  SEPTUAGINT  91 

may  account  for  his  strenuous  adherence  to  the  letter  of 
the  text. 

There  are  conflicting  statements  regarding  Theodo- 
tion,  whether  he  was  a  Jew  or  an  Ebiouite,  and  whether 
he  was  from  Pontus  or  from  Ephesus.  His  version  is 
attributed  to  the  reign  of  Commodus,  a.d.  180-192,  and 
resembled  in  style  and  character  the  Septuagint,  whose 
errors  and  deficiencies  it  was  its  principal  aim  to  correct. 
Symmachus  was  an  Ebionite,  and  is  assigned  to  the  reign 
of  Severus,  a.d.  193-211.  Two  editions  of  his  version 
are  spoken  of.  He  sought  to  give  a  free  translation, 
and  to  express  the  sense  in  pure  and  elegant  Greek. 
In  Gen.  v.  he  agrees  with  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch  in 
the  ages  assigned  to  the  patriarchs.  Jerome  character- 
izes these  three  versions  by  saying  that  Aquila  strives 
to  render  word  for  word,  Symmachus  prefers  to  follow 
the  sense,  and  Theodotion  does  not  differ  much  from 
the  Septuagint.  These  versions  contained  nothing 
apocryphal,  except  that  of  Theodotion,  which  had  the 
postscript  to  the  Book  of  Job,  and  the  additions  to 
Daniel,  viz. :  the  story  of  Susannah,  the  song  of  the 
three  children,  and  Bel  and  the  Dragon. 

In  the  course  of  repeated  transcription  the  text  of  the 
Septuagint  suffered  greatly,  until  in  the  early  part  of 
the  third  century  Origeu  complains  that  every  different 
manuscript  contained  a  distinct  text.  To  remedy  this 
evil,  and  at  the  same  time  furnish  aid  to  Christians  in 
their  interpretations  of  Scripture  and  in  their  contro- 
versies, he  undertook  the  labor  of  removing  the  dis- 
crepancies in  the  copies  of  the  Septuagint  by  a  com- 
parison of  the  best  and  most  accurate  manuscripts  and 
at  the  same  time  of  exhibiting  its  agreement  with  or 
divergence  from  both  the  original  Hebrew  and  other 
existing  versions.  With  this  view  he  planned  and  exe- 
cuted his  Hexapla,  upon  which  he  is  said  to  have  spent 


92  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

twenty-eight  years  of  his  life.^  The  Hexapla  (six-fold) 
was  so  called  from  its  being  arranged  in  six  parallel 
columns  ;  the  first  contained  the  original  text  in  Hebrew 
characters;  the  second  the  same  in  Greek  letters  to 
facilitate  its  pronunciation ;  the  remaining  columns  the 
versions  of  Aquila,  Symmachus,  the  Septuagint  and 
Theodotion  respectively.  Aquila  and  Symmachus  stood 
next  to  the  Hebrew  as  most  closely  allied  to  it,  one  in 
form,  the  other  in  sense,  and  Theodotion  followed  the 
Septuagint,  to  which  it  was  most  nearly  related.  In 
addition  to  these  columns  there  were  in  various  parts 
of  the  work  one,  two,  or  three  more  for  the  sake  of  in- 
troducing three  other  partial  versions  in  the  various 
books  which  they  respectively  contained.  These  ver- 
sions are  only  known  from  their  connection  with  this 
work,  and  the  few  scattered  fragments  of  them  which 
have  been  preserved.  Their  authors  are  unknown. 
They  are  named  from  the  position  which  they  respec- 
tively occupied  among  the  versions  in  the  Hexapla,  the 
Quinta,  Sexta,  and  Septima.  The  Quinta  is  said  to 
have  been  found  by  Origen  at  Nicopolis  near  Actium  ; 
and  the  Sexta  was  discovered  by  him  in  a  cask  at 
Jericho ;  its  author  is  known  to  have  been  a  Christian 
from  his  translation  of  Heb.  iii.  13,  where  "  thine 
anointed  "  is  rendered  "  Jesus  thy  Christ."  There  are 
no  certain  references  to  the  Septima  except  one  in  the 
Psalms  and  one  in  Habakkuk,  and  these  nearly  repeat 
Theodotion.  Jerome  says  that  the  Quinta,  Sexta,  and 
Septima  were  chiefly  used  in  the  poetical  books,  that  is, 

'  He  thus  describes  his  labors  in  a  letter  to  a  friend  :  "  We  are  col- 
lating manuscripts  and  cannot  sup,  nor  walk  after  supper,  nor  rest 
our  bodies ;  but  even  at  these  times  we  are  compelled  to  pursue  our 
literary  work  and  correct  codices.  Nor  can  we  sleep  the  whole  night 
to  refresh  the  body.  I  say  nothing  of  our  toil  from  early  morning  to 
the  ninth  or  tenth  hour. " 


THE  SEPTUAGINT  \)S 

as  he  explains  elsewhere,  Job,  Psalms,  Lamentations, 
and  the  Song  of  Songs. 

The  aim  of  Origen  in  this  work  was  not  so  much 
critical  as  exegetical  and  polemic.  His  purpose  was  not 
to  bring  the  text  of  the  Septuagint  back  to  its  pristine 
state,  but  to  make  it  adequately  represent  the  original. 
With  this  view  he  adopted  the  following  plan  in  its 
correction.  Where  the  manuscripts  of  the  Septuagint 
differed  he  chose  as  the  preferable  reading  that  which 
was  most  nearly  conformed  to  the  Hebrew  and  tbe  other 
versions.  The  spelling  of  proper  names  was  in  many 
cases  corrected  by  the  Hebrew.  When  any  words  oc- 
curred in  the  Hebrew  to  which  there  was  nothing  equiv- 
alent in  the  Septuagint,  he  inserted  them  from  one  of 
the  other  versions,  generally  from  Theodotion,  as  the 
one  most  nearly  approaching  the  style  of  the  Septuagint, 
and  an  asterisk  was  prefixed  to  them  to  indicate  the 
fact.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  any  words  occurred  in  the 
Septuagint  to  which  there  was  nothing  answering  in  the 
Hebrew,  he  prefixed  an  obelos  or  horizontal  line  to  show 
that  this  was  the  case,  but  did  not  expunge  them.  When 
a  brief  passage  or  clause  in  the  Septuagint  was  trans- 
posed from  its  proper  place,  as  shown  by  the  Hebrew 
and  the  other  versions,  it  was  allowed  to  remain  where 
it  was,  but  this  was  indicated  by  prefixing  an  asterisk 
and  obelos  combined.  When  long  passages  were  found 
transposed,  as  in  Ex.  xxxvi.-xxxix.  and  Jer.  xxv.-li.,  the 
true  order  was  restored  as  in  the  Hebrew  for  the  sake 
of  more  convenient  comparison.  A  figure  called  the 
metobelos  was  placed  at  the  end  of  a  passage  or  clause, 
to  which  critical  marks  had  been  prefixed,  to  show  how 
far  their  influence  extended.^     The  lemnisk,  a  horizon- 

'  These  various  marks,  which  were  in  familiar  use  by  the  classical 
critics  of  the  time,  were  borrowed  from  them  by  Origen  with  a  slight 
modification  in   the  mode  of  their  employment.     Verses  in  Homer, 


94  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

tal  line  with  a  dot  both  above  and  below  it,  and  the 
hypolemnisk,  a  horizontal  line  with  a  single  dot  beneath 
it,  were  merely  varied  forms  of  the  obelos,  and  used  for 
the  same  purpose.^ 

Besides  the  Hexapla  of  Origen,  mention  is  made  by 
early  writers  of  an  Octapla  and  a  Tetrapla.  The  Octa- 
pla  was  not  a  separate  publication,  but  identical  with 
the  Hexapla,  which  was  so  called  in  those  parts  in 
which  two  additional  versions  were  used,  and  conse- 
quently eight  columns  were  required.  Some  modem 
scholars  have  used  the  word  Enneapla  (nine-fold)  to  des- 
ignate those  parts  of  this  work  in  which  the  three  ad- 
ditional versions  were  used  together ;  but  this  term  is 
not  found  in  any  ancient  authority.^  The  Tetrapla 
was  a  distinct  issue  of  the  four  principal  versions  with- 
out the  Hebrew.  Hody,  Ussher,  and  others  contended 
that  this  was  prepared  in  the  first  instance ;  and  that  at 
a  later  time,  when  the  three  minor  versions,  Quinta, 
Sexta,  and  Septima  had  been  discovered,  the  Hexapla 
was  produced  as  an  enlargement  upon  the  original 
plan.     Field,  however,  agrees  with  those  who  maintain, 

which  were  found  duplicated  in  exact  terms,  were  marked  with  an 
asterisk  in  that  place  in  which  they  seemed  best  suited  to  the  connection, 
and  with  an  asterisk  and  obelos  combined  where  they  appear  to  be  less 
appropriate,  and  were  therefore  thought  to  be  out  of  place.  The 
obelos  was  prefixed  to  verses  which  were  regarded  as  spurious. 

'  Epiphanius  invented  a  special  sense  for  these  two  marks  based  upon 
his  conceit  that  the  seventy-two  interpreters  did  their  work  indepen- 
dently in  thirty-six  cells,  and  that  their  translations  agreed  perfectly  in 
sense,  with  unimportant  differences  in  the  form  of  expression.  A  lem- 
nisk  with  its  two  dots  prefixed  to  a  word  or  clause  indicated  a  reading 
suggested  by  two  pairs  of  interpreters ;  a  hypolemnisk  with  its  single 
dot  one  proposed  by  a  single  pair. 

"^  Pentapla  occurs  in  a  single  instance  in  a  marginal  note  appended  to 
an  ancient  manuscript,  and  denotes  the  four  principal  Greek  versions 
together  with  the  Hebrew  in  Greek  letters.  Heptapla  is  found  in  two 
notes  attached  to  the  vSyro-Hexaplaric  version  and  means  the  Hexapla 
when  the  Quinta  version  is  used. 


THE  SEPTUAGINT  95 

on  the  authority  of  Eusebius,^  that  the  Tetrapla  was  a 
subsequent  abridgment  of  the  more  comprehensive  work 
in  order  to  bring  it  within  a  more  manageable  compass. 
In  A.D.  232  Origen  was  driven  out  of  his  native  city 
of  Alexandria,  and  retired  to  Cfcsarea  Palestiua,  where, 
with  few  exceptions,  he  passed  the  remainder  of  his  days. 
He  died  at  Tyre  in  the  reign  of  the  emperor  Gallus, 
A.D.  251-254,  at  the  age  of  seventy.  His  great  work 
was  in  tifty  volumes  and  was  too  cumbrous  ever  to  come 
into  general  use,  and  probably  was  never  completely 
transcribed.  It  is  not  certainly  known  where  it  was 
deposited  at  the  time  of  his  death  ;  but  after  lying  in 
obscurity  for  fifty  years  it  is  mentioned  as  belonging  to 
the  library  at  Csesarea,  whether  put  there  originally  or 
brought  thither  from  Tyre.  It  was  still  there  at  a  later 
time  when  consulted  by  Jerome.  There  is  positive 
evidence  that  the  library  was  in  existence  in  tlie  sixth 
century  ;  but  it  was  destroyed  shortly  afterward  in  some 
manner  now  unknown,  and  this  invaluable  treasure 
perished  with  it.  It  has  been  conjectured  that  it  was 
burned  when  C?esarea  was  taken  by  the  Saracens,  a.d. 
638 ;  the  city,  however,  was  not  captured  by  assault, 
but  surrendered  by  the  citizens,  who  paid  a  heavy  ran- 
som for  its  protection.  The  Hexapla  now  only  exists 
in  fragments  scattered  through  the  works  of  ancient 
writers  or  noted  on  the  margin  of  manuscripts.  These 
have  been  diligently  collected  and  published  at  various 
times,  most  completely  by  Field  in  1875.^ 

'  The  whole  question  turns  upon  the  word  used  by  Eusebius,  Eccles. 
Hist.,  VI.,  16,  whether  it  is  iTriKaTaa-Kfvdcras  or  e7rt(r/ceuc£(ros,  which  is  a 
less  attested  reading,  and  whether  the  proper  force  of  the  preposition 
eVi  is  to  be  insisted  on. 

'  Previous  collections  were  issued  by  Drusius,  ir)22,  Lambert  Bos. 
1709,  and  Montfaucon,  1713.  The  authority  of  Field  in  the  Prole- 
gomena to  his  edition  of  the  ITexnpla  has  been  followed  in  all  that  ie 
statod  above  respecting  the  contents  of  this  work  and  all  that  is  con 
nected  with  it. 


96  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

The  labors  of  Origen,  instead  of  remedying  the  diver- 
sity already  existing  in  the  copies  of  the  Septuagint, 
tended  indirectly  to  increase  them,  as  not  infrequently 
transcribers  preserved  the  additions  made  to  the  text, 
but  neglected  the  marks  by  which  they  were  designated 
as  such.  Great  confusion  was  thus  caused  by  the  min- 
gling of  different  versions.  Three  martyrs,  Pamphilus 
(+309),  a  presbyter  of  Csesarea  Palestina,  Lucian  (+312), 
a  presbyter  of  Antioch,  and  Hesychius,  an  Egyptian 
bishop  who  suffered  death  in  the  same  persecution, 
successively  issued  carefully  prepared  editions  of  the 
Septuagint.  Pamphilus,  assisted  by  Eusebius,  issued 
copies  of  the  Septuagint  column  of  the  Hexapla,  retain- 
ing its  critical  marks.  This  became  exceedingly  popu- 
lar and  was  used  to  the  exclusion  of  every  other  text 
throughout  Palestine.  The  Emperor  Constantine  direct- 
ed that  fifty  copies  of  this  Palestine  edition  should  be 
prepared  for  use  in  the  churches.  Lucian  revised  the 
text  of  the  Septuagint,  supplying  its  omissions  from  the 
other  Greek  versions,  whose  expressions  he  slightly 
modified,  duplicating  the  translation  where  it  departed 
from  the  Hebrew  by  adding  to  the  existing  text  of  the 
Septuagint  a  corrected  version  of  the  passage,  occasion- 
ally inserting  explanatory  clauses  to  make  the  meaning 
plainer,  and  sometimes  substituting  synonymous  words 
for  those  contained  in  the  Septuagint.  This  recension 
was  adopted  at  Antioch  and  Constantinople  as  well 
as  in  the  intervening  region.  The  revision  of  Hesy- 
chius was  adopted  in  Alexandria  and  Egypt ;  little  is 
known  of  its  peculiar  character.^    These  labors  certainly 

^  Jerome  says  of  these  different  editions  :  "  Alexandria  et  Aegyptus 
in  Septuaginta  suis  Hesychium  laudat  auctorem ;  Constantinopolis 
usque  ad  Antiochiam  Luciani  Marty ris  exemplaria  probat ;  mediae  in- 
ter has  provinciae  Palestinos  codices  legunt,  quos  ab  Origene  elabora- 
tes Eusebius  et  Pamphilus  vulgaverunt ;  totusque  orbis  hac  inter  se 
trifaria  varietate  compugnat." 


THE  SEPTUAGINT  97 

did  not  result  in  establishing  a  uniform  text ;  on  the  con- 
trary, they  seriously  increased  the  divergence  already 
existing.  Jerome  complains  of  great  diversity  in  the 
copies  and  corruption  in  the  text  in  his  day.  And  the 
errors  which  have  since  arisen  in  the  course  of  tran- 
scription during  so  many  centuries  have  immensely  ag- 
gravated the  difficulty. 

A  great  number  of  manuscripts  of  the  Septuagint  pre- 
served in  the  libraries  of  Europe  and  the  East  have 
been  more  or  less  thoroughly  examined  by  scholars 
with  the  view  of  obtaining  the  best  text.  Three  princi- 
pal manuscripts,  which  have  been  published  in  fac- 
simile, are  familiarly  known  as  the  Codex  Alexandrinus 
in  the  British  Museum  at  London,  the  Codex  Yaticanus 
in  the  Vatican  Library  at  Rome,  and  the  Codex  Sinait- 
icus  in  the  Imperial  Library  at  St.  Petersburg,  a  por- 
tion of  which  is  in  Berlin  and  was  previously  published 
under  the  title  of  the  Codex  Friderico-Augustanus. 
The  first  portion  of  the  Septuagint  ever  printed  was  the 
Psalter,  two  editions  of  which  (1481  and  1486)  appeared 
before  the  entire  Old  Testament  was  printed.  The 
Greek  Old  Testament  as  well  as  the  Greek  New  Testa- 
ment was  first  printed  in  the  Complutensian  Polyglot 
(1514-1517),  though  in  both  instances  the  publication 
was  preceded  by  the  appearance  of  a  complete  edition  in 
another  quarter.  The  Aldine  Edition  of  the  LXX.,  as  it  is 
called  after  Aldus  Manutius,  from  whose  press  it  was 
issued,  though  printed  after  the  Complutensian,  was  pub- 
lished four  years  before  it  in  1518.  Both  these  editions 
claim  to  have  followed  ancient  and  good  manuscripts, 
though  no  particular  account  is  given  of  them  and  noth- 
ing is  now  known  respecting  them.  They  have  been  sus- 
pected of  altering  the  text  in  order  to  bring  it  into  closer 
conformity  with  the  Hebrew  or  the  Vulgate,  and  of  intro- 
(iucing  readings  from  the  other  ancient  Greek  versions, 
7 


98  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

On  this  account  the  text  of  these  editions  is  less  valued 
in  a  critical  point  of  view  than  it  would  otherwise  have 
been.  The  text  of  the  Complutensian  was  followed  in 
two  others  of  the  principal  Polyglots,  that  of  Antwerp 
and  that  of  Paris.  The  London  Polyglot  followed  what 
is  known  as  the  Sixtine  Edition  (1587),  so  named  from 
Pope  Sixtus  v.,  at  whose  instance  it  was  prepared  and 
published.  The  work  was  urged  by  him,  while  still  a 
cardinal,  upon  Pope  Gregory  XIII.,  and  after  his  own 
ascension  to  the  pontifical  chair  was  carried  by  him  to 
completion.  A  large  number  of  manuscripts  were  col- 
lated for  it,  and  extracts  from  the  Septuagint  were 
gathered  from  the  writings  of  the  fathers.  The  result 
was  a  conviction  of  the  general  superiority  of  the  Vati° 
can  manuscript,  the  text  of  which  was  accordingly  fol- 
lowed in  the  main  in  this  edition,  while  a  copious  body 
of  various  readings  obtained  from  other  soui'ces  was 
added.  This  was  the  best  and  most  correct  edition  of 
the  Septuagint  which  had  yet  been  issued,  though  it  did 
not  quite  deserve  the  exalted  commendation  bestowed 
upon  it  by  the  Pope  in  announcing  its  appearance, 
who  strictly  prohibited  any  change  in  it  in  the  future, 
whether  by  addition  or  subtraction,  on  the  penalty  of  in- 
curring the  wrath  of  Almighty  God  and  of  the  blessed 
apostles  Peter  and  Paul.  An  edition  in  which  the 
text  of  the  Alexandrine  manuscript  was  followed,  was 
published  at  Oxford  in  1707.  It  was  principally  pre- 
pared under  the  direction  of  Grabe,  a  Prussian  then  resi- 
dent in  England,  whose  name  it  bears,  and  who  under- 
took the  work  under  the  auspices  of  Queen  Anne, 
though  he  did  not  live  to  finish  it.  It  was  completed 
by  others  after  his  death.  A  more  accurate  reprint  of 
this  manuscript  was  published  by  Field  in  1859.  The 
several  editions  of  Tischendorf  (the  first  in  1850,  the 
fifth  in  1875)  and  that  of  Swete  (the  first  two  volumes 


THE  SEPTUAGINT  99 

in  1887  and  1891)  follow  in  the  main  the  Vatican 
MS.,  with  various  readings  from  other  valuable  cod- 
ices. 

Lagarde  has  projected  a  scheme  for  restoring  the 
original  text  of  the  LXX.,  b}^  a  series  of  approximations, 
which  if  it  shall  be  found  practicable,  may  ultimately 
issue  in  reaching  the  end  desired  with  a  tolerable  degree 
of  certainty.  In  the  bewildering  multitude  of  MSS.  and 
multiplicity  of  texts  he  considered  it  a  hopeless  task  to 
seek  to  attain  the  primitive  form  of  the  LXX.  by  means 
of  individual  codices.  He  therefore  proposed  a  classifi- 
cation of  all  MSS.,  according  to  their  affinities,  into  three 
divisions,  which  shall  represent  respectively  the  three 
recensions  of  Pamphilus,  Lucian,  and  Hesj^chius.  Each 
of  these  divisions  may  be  relied  upon  to  restore,  as  far 
as  this  can  be  done,  the  recension  from  which  it  has 
been  derived.  This  will  put  us  measurably  in  posses- 
sion of  the  three  different  texts  of  the  LXX.  which 
were  in  circulation  in  the  time  of  Jerome.  And  by  a 
careful  comparison  of  these  it  is  hoped  to  attain  the  best 
form  now  available  of  the  primitive  text  from  which  they 
were  all  derived.  Lagarde  himself  undertook  the  recon- 
struction of  the  recension  of  Lucian,  and  published  his 
results  as  far  as  he  had  proceeded. 

It  has  already  been  said  that  the  Book  of  Daniel  in 
general  use  in  the  Greek  Bible  was  the  translation  of 
Theodotion,  which  was  substituted  for  that  of  the  LXX. 
on  account  of  the  great  inaccuracy  of  the  latter.  The 
Septuagint  version  of  Daniel  was  long  supposed  to  be 
lost,  but  was  at  length  discovered  in  a  manuscript  in 
Rome  in  the  library  of  Cardinal  Cliigi,  and  was  identi- 
fied by  its  agreement  with  the  citations  made  by  Jerome 
and  others  of  the  early  fathers  from  this  version,  and 
by  the  fact  that  those  passages  which  they  remarked 
upon  as  wanting  in  the  LXX.  were  missing  in  this  manu- 


100  GENERAL  INTRODUCTION 

script.  It  was  first  printed  in  Rome  in  1772,  and  has 
been  repeatedly  published  since. 

Among  the  authorities  cited  by  Greek  fathers  or 
noted  on  the  margin  of  manuscripts,  mention  is  made 
of  the  'Hebrew,'  the  'Syriac/  and  the  'Samaritan.' 
What  these  severally  denote  can  only  be  conjecturally 
determined.  The  '  Hebrew '  sometimes  means  the  first 
or  second  column  of  the  Hexapla,  i.e.,  the  Hebrew 
text  in  its  own  proper  form  or  transliterated  into 
Greek  characters ;  and  sometimes  a  Greek  version 
of  the  Hebrew  by  some  unknown  author,  chiefly 
referred  to  in  Genesis,  Job,  and  Ezekiel.  The  '  Syr- 
iac '  was  not  the  Peshito,  but  a  Greek  version  based 
upon  it,  whose  author  is  unknown.  The  '  Samaritan '  de- 
notes either  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch  or  the  Samaritan 
version  of  the  Pentateuch,  with  which  the  great  major- 
ity of  the  references  made  to  it  correspond. 

A  large  proportion  of  the  early  versions  of  the  Old 
Testament  were  made  from  the  Septuagint,  as  Hebrew 
was  at  that  time  understood  by  few  except  Jews. 
Among  these  were  the  Latin  Itala,  and  the  Syro-Hexa- 
plaric,  which  will  be  considered  hereafter.  The  Ethi- 
opic  version  is  attributed  to  Frumentius,  Bishop  of 
Axum,  in  the  fourth  century,  one  of  the  founders  of  the 
Christian  Church  in  that  region,  who  is  known  in  Etlii- 
opic  tradition  as  Abba  Salama.  This  is  doubtless  the 
version  referred  to  by  Chrysostom  (a.d.  354-407),  who 
speaks  of  the  Scriptures  having  been  translated  into 
the  language  of  Ethiopia.  It  contains,  besides  the  ca- 
nonical books,  several  apocryphal  writings  in  addition 
to  those  extant  in  the  Greek,  such  as  the  Book  of  Enoch, 
Fourth  Esdras,  the  Ascension  of  Isaiah,  etc.  Accord- 
ing to  Cornill  (Ezekiel,  p.  37)  this  version  appears  in 
different  manuscripts  in  two  forms,  the  older  made  di- 
rectly from  the  Greek,  and  another,  a  later  revision  of 


THE   SEPTUAGINT  101 

the  same,  altered  in  various  passages  into  correspond- 
ence with  the  Hebrew.  Portions  of  it  only  have  been 
printed ;  the  Psalms  and  Song  of  Solomon  in  1513  and 
several  times  since.  The  Pentateuch  and  Former 
Prophets,  together  with  several  apocryphal  books,  were 
published  by  Dillmau,  1853-1894 ;  some  of  the  Minor 
Prophets  and  the  Lamentations  by  Bachmann,  1892, 
1893. 

The  Egyptian  versions  belong  probably  to  the  latter 
part  of  the  third  or  the  beginning  of  the  fourth  century. 
They  are  in  three  different  dialects,  that  of  Upper  Egypt, 
the  Sahidic  or  Thebaic ;  that  of  Central  Egypt,  the 
Coptic  or  Memphitic,  and  that  of  Lower  Egypt,  the  Bo- 
hairic.  The  last  of  these  is  complete  in  manuscripts ; 
the  Minor  and  Major  Prophets  and  the  Book  of  Job 
were  published  by  Tattam  in  Oxford  (1836-1852),  and 
the  Book  of  Daniel  by  Bardelli  in  Pisa  (1849).  Cornill 
has  shown  that,  while  it  closely  follows  the  Septuagint, 
there  are  occasional  indications  of  its  having  been  influ- 
enced by  the  Hebrew.  The  others  only  exist  in  frag- 
ments. 

The  Gothic  version  by  Ulphilas  in  the  fourth  cen- 
tury, including  the  whole  Bible  except  the  Books  of 
Kings,  was  made  from  the  Greek.  None  of  the  Old 
Testament  is  now  extant. 

The  Armenian  version  was  made  from  the  Greek,  and 
is  attributed  to  Miesrob,  the  inventor  of  the  Armenian 
character,  in  the  early  part  of  the  fifth  century.  It  is 
said  to  have  been  since  interpolated  from  the  Peshito 
and  the  Vulgate.  Several  editions  of  it  have  been  pub- 
lished. 

The  Georgic  version  was  made  in  the  sixth  century 
by  an  unknown  author. 

The  Slavic  version  of  Methodius  and  Cyril  in  the  ninth 
century  is  commonly  supposed  to  have  sprung  from  the 


102  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

Septuagint,  though  some  have  thought  that  it  was  mado 
from  the  Itala. 

Some  Arabic  versions  of  diifferent  books  of  the  Old 
Testament,  which  are  printed  in  the  Paris  and  London 
Polyglots,  also  follow  the  Septuagint. 


The  Taegums. 

The  versions  or  paraphrases  of  the  Old  Testament  in 
Jewish  Aramean  are  called  Targums,  from  an  Aramean 
root  signifying  to  exjplain  or  translate,  and  which  is  still 
preserved  in  the  "di'agoman,"  or  interpreter  of  the  Le- 
vant. It  occurs  once  in  the  Bible,  in  Ezra  iv.  7.  The 
traditional  account  of  their  origin  is  that,  when  the  Ara- 
mean had  become  the  language  of  the  people,  and  the 
Scriptures  in  Hebrew  were  no  longer  intelligible  to 
them,  an  interpreter  was  appointed,  as  well  as  a  reader, 
in  each  synagogue,  the  office  of  the  former  being  to  ren- 
der each  passage  in  the  language  of  the  people  as  it  was 
read  in  the  original  by  the  latter.  Explicit  directions 
were  given  as  to  the  method  to  be  observed.  Each  verse 
of  the  law  was  read  singly  and  then  translated ;  in  the 
Prophets  three  verses  might  be  read  together  unless  the 
connection  forbade  it.  A  trace  of  this  usage  is  still 
found  in  many  manuscripts,  in  which  the  Targum  fol- 
lows the  original  verse  by  verse.  The  interpreter  must 
not  use  a  written  translation,  nor  must  he  look  upon 
the  book  used  by  the  reader,  lest  it  should  be  imagined 
that  he  was  reading  his  translation  from  that  volume. 
The  private  use  of  aids  to  translation  was  not,  how^ever, 
prohibited.  These  oral  renderings,  in  the  course  of 
time,  assumed  a  somewhat  fixed  and  conventional  form  ; 
the  best  renderings  by  the  most  skilful  interpreters, 
particularly  in  obscure  and  difficult  passages,  were  re- 
garded as  normative  and  came  into  general  use.     These 


THE   TARGUMS  103 

traditional  intei-pretations,  preserved  orally  and  to  some 
extent  perhaps  in  writing,  ultimately  formed  the  basis 
of  written  Targums,  which  had  the  advantage  of  greater 
accuracy  and  certainty,  and  gradually  superseded  the 
use  of  extemporaneous  translations.  The  Targums  are  j 
thus  not  strictly  the  work  of  the  person  by  whom  they  ' 
were  finally  compiled.  They  were,  on  the  contrary,  the 
growth  of  long  periods  of  time,  and  contained  materials 
gradually  accumulated  through  successive  generations. 
They  represent,  not  so  much  individual  opinions,  as  the 
prevalent  interpretations  and  generally  accepted  ideas 
of  the  times  when  they  were  produced.  From  the  mode 
of  their  preparation  it  will  further  appear  how  variant 
readings  might  be  embodied  in  them  from  the  start. 
As  synagogue  usage  would  not  be  absolutely  uniform, 
alternate  renderings  of  particular  words  or  phrases 
might  be  introduced  where  the  compiler  did  not  feel 
competent  to  decide  between  them,  so  that  one  would 
find  place  in  one  copy  and  another  in  another,  or  both 
be  put  together  in  the  same  text. 

The  earliest  mention  of  a  written  Targum  is  the 
statement  that  one  on  the  Book  of  Job  ^  was  shown  to 
Gamaliel,  and  this  must  have  been  before  the  destruc- 
tion of  the  second  temple.  As  it  is  not  probable  that 
this  was  the  first  book  translated,  and  especially  as  a 
Greek  version  of  the  Scriptures  had  long  been  in  use 
among  the  Greek-speaking  Jews,  it  may  be  assumed  that 
the  law  and  perhaps  other  portions  of  the  Bible  had 
already  been  rendered  into  the  language  of  the  Jews  of 
Palestine,  if  not  for  public,  yet  for  private,  use.  The 
Targums  do  not  form  one  continuous  version  of  the  Old 
Testament,  but  are  distinct  works  compiled  by  difi'erent 

'  The  subscription  to  the  Book  of  Job  in  the  LXX.  speaks  of  it  as 
translated  from  the  Syriac,  which  some  understand  to  refer  to  an  Ara- 
mean  Targum,  others  to  the  Hebrew. 


1U4  GENERAL  INTRODUCTION 

persons  at  different  times,  each  containing  one  or  more 
of  the  sacred  books.  Ten  Targmus  are  known  to  be  in 
existence  in  whole  or  in  part.  There  are  three  on  the 
Pentateuch  commonly  called  that  of  Onkelos,  the  Pseudo- 
Jonathan,  and  the  Jerusalem ;  two  on  the  Prophets,  one 
attributed  to  Jonathan  ben  Uzziel,  and  another  the 
Jerusalem ;  one  on  the  Hagiographa,  containing  Job, 
Psalms,  and  Proverbs;  one  on  the  five  Megilloth, 
Euth,  Lamentations,  Ecclesiastes,  Esther,  and  the  Song 
of  Solomon ;  two  additional  on  Esther ;  and  one  on 
Chronicles. 

The  name  of  Onkelos  has  been  attached  by  mistake 
to  the  oldest  and  best  of  the  Targums  on  the  Pentateuch. 
The  Jerusalem  Talmud  speaks  repeatedly  of  Akilas 
(ob'^pS?)  the  proselyte,  whose  translation  of  the  Script- 
ures received  the  approval  of  R.  Eliezer  and  R.  Joshua, 
evidently  meaning  the  Greek  version  of  Aquila.  The 
Babylonish  Talmud  repeats  the  same  identical  things 
of  Onkelos  (obpDIX),  and  erroneously  makes  him  the 
author  of  the  Targum  on  the  Pentateuch.  This  has  led 
some  scholars  to  suppose  that  Aquila  was  the  author 
both  of  a  Greek  and  an  Aramean  version,  or  else  that  the 
Targum  was  based  upon  his  Greek  version,  and  so  re- 
ceived his  name.  Neither  of  these,  however,  was  the 
case.  Aquila's  strictly  literal  version  for  Greek-speak- 
ing Jews  may  have  suggested  the  desirableness  of  hav- 
ing something  similar  in  the  vernacular  of  Palestine. 
And  some  other  pupil  of  the  distinguished  B.  Akiba, 
whose  principle  of  rigorous  adherence  to  the  text  of 
Scripture  is  well  known,  may  have  prepared  the  Targum. 
This  is  in  fact  the  opinion  of  Berliner,  who  after  a 
thorough  investigation  assigns  its  composition  to  the 
second  half  of  the  second  century  a.d.,  as  there  is 
nothing  in  the  Targum  to  point  to  a  later  date.  He 
attributes  no  weight  to  the  consideration,  which  some 


THE  TARGUMS  105 

have  urged,  that  its  dialect  is  that  of  Babylon  rather 
than  that  of  Palestine,  since  the  distinction  is  mainly  in 
the  vowels,  and  these  are  a  later  addition  to  the  text ;  and 
as  far  as  it  affects  the  consonants,  it  was  developed  at  a 
subsequent  period.  The  Targum,  though  prepared  in 
Palestine,  did  not  gain  authoritative  sanction  there, 
since  the  official  interpreters  of  the  Synagogues  were 
unwilling  to  have  their  liberty  of  translation  abridged 
or  superseded  by  its  introduction  in  public  Avorship. 
For  this  reason  it  is  never  mentioned  in  the  Jerusalem 
Talmud,  which  only  occasionally  cites  Targumic  render- 
ings for  the  purpose  of  censuring  them.  When  and  by 
whom  it  was  taken  to  Babylonia  is  not  known.  Its  re- 
daction did  not  take  place  there,  but  was  completed  in 
Palestine.  It  speedily  rose  to  great  favor,  however ;  is 
often  cited  as  authoritative  in  the  Talmud,  and  is  there 
spoken  of  as  **our  Targum"  and  the  "Babylonish 
Targum."  For  this  reason,  coupled  with  the  absence  of 
any  allusion  to  it  in  the  Jerusalem  Talmud,  and  from  a 
notion  that  its  dialect  is  different  from  that  of  Palestine, 
Frankel  ^  claims  that  it  had  its  origin  in  Babylonia,  and 
he  ascribes  it  to  a  pupil  of  Kab,  the  founder  of  the 
school  at  Sura  and  of  Jewish  learning  in  that  region.  It 
is  only  in  writers  of  the  ninth  and  tenth  centuries  and 
thenceforward  that  the  name  of  Onkelos  is  attached  to 
the  Targum  on  the  Pentateuch  in  conformity  with  the 
anonymous  passage  in  the  Babylonish  Talmud.  Azariah 
de'  Kossi  in  the  sixteenth  century  was  the  first  to  point 
out  that  the  Akilas  of  the  Jerusalem  Talmud  was  the 
Greek  translator  Aquila,  and  not  the  author  of  the  Tar- 
gum. 
I  This  Targum  adheres  closely  to  the  original  text,  of 
'  which  it  gives  for  the  most  part  a  simple  literal  trans- 
lation. Sometimes,  to  render  the  meaning  clearer,  an 
'  Targum  der  Fropheten,  pp.  5-9. 


106  GENERAL  INTRODUCTION 

explanatory  word  or  brief  clause  is  inserted,  figurative 
expressions  are  resolved  into  literal  terms  or  plainer 
figui-es,  the  interrogative  form  is  replaced  by  the  affir- 
mation or  negation  which  it  implies,  etc.  In  cases  where 
there  were  opposing  interpretations  the  Targum  follows 
the  accepted  view  of  the  passage,  or  that  which  in  his 
exegetical  understanding  of  it  was  the  better  founded. 
While  aiming  to  give  precise  expression  to  the  thought 
conveyed  by  tradition,  it  is  never  suffered  to  be  overrun, 
as  in  other  Targunis,  by  legendary  or  supplementary  mat- 
ter. Only  in  poetical  passages  it  deals  more  freely  with 
the  text,  but  never  so  arbitrarily  that  it  does  not  at  least 
serve  as  a  basis  for  the  paraphrase.  It  systematically 
avoids  anthropomorphisms  and  anthropopathies,  and 
any  forms  of  expression  which  might  seem  dishonoring 
to,  or  unworthy  of,  the  infinite  God  ;  the  word  or  glory 
or  shekinah  of  Jehovah  is  often  substituted  for  the 
divine  name  ;  and  as  Elohim  may  be  used  of  false 
deities  as  well  as  of  the  true  God,  it  is  commonly  re- 
placed by  Jehovah  in  the  latter  case,  and  in  the  former 
a  word  is  substituted  for  it  that  is  indicative  of  false 
worship. 

J  This  Targum  was  first  printed  without  the  vowels  in 
/  Bologna,  1482,  together  with  the  Hebrew  Pentateuch.  It 
was  first  printed  with  the  vowels  in  1491.  The  name  of 
Onkelos  was  not  connected  with  it  in  either  of  these 
editions.  The  Kabbinical  Bible  of  Venice,  1517,  was 
the  first  publication  in  which  it  was  entitled  the  Tar- 
gum of  Onkelos  ;  and  this  name  has  been  given  to  it 
in  most  subsequent  editions. 

The  oldest  Targum  on  the  Prophets  commonly  bears 
the  name  of  Jonathan  ben  Uzziel,^  a  pupil  of  Hillel,  in 

'  "  Jonathan  ben  Uzziel  translated  the  Prophets  into  Aramean  from  the 
mouth  of  Haggai,  Zechariah,  and  Malachi.  When  he  did  this,  the  land 
of  Israel  was  shaken  for  forty  parasangs,  and  a  voice  was  heard  saying 


THE  TARGUMS  107 

the  first  half  of  the  first  century  A.D.  It  is  nowhere  re- 
ferred to  in  the  Jerusalem  Talmud.  In  the  Babylon- 
ish Talmud  it  is  called  the  Targum,  not  of  Jonathan, 
but  of  R.  Joseph,  who  presided  over  the  academy  of 
Pumpeditha  in  Babylonia  in  the  beginning  of  the  fourth 
century.  Frankel  ^  supposes  that  he  may  have  made 
use  of  some  pre-existing  renderings  of  Jonathan  in  its 
preparation,  and  so  the  name  of  the  latter  came  to  be 
connected  with  the  Targum,  or  else  the  abbreviation  "h 
may  have  been  misunderstood  to  mean  Targum  of  Jon- 
athan ("jnDT^  D1!\nn)  instead  of  Targum  of  Joseph  (dISID 
C1D"I">).  It  has  been  conjectured  that,  as  the  name  of 
Onkelos  was  given  to  the  Targum  on  the  Pentateuch 
from  its  being  confused  with  the  Greek  version  of  Aquila, 
a  like  confusion  of  the  Targum  on  the  Prophets  with 
the  version  of  Theodotion  may  have  given  rise  to  the 
name  of  Jonathan,  which  has  the  same  signification. 
But  this  surmise  is  without  foundation,  since  Theodo- 
tion is  never  referred  to  in  either  of  the  Talmuds,  nor 
in  any  ancient  Jewish  writing. 

The  Targum  on  the  Prophets  borrows  several  verses 
and  clauses  from  that  on  the  Pentateuch,  where  the  pas- 
sages are  of  like  tenor,  agrees  with  it  in  avoiding  anthro- 
pomorphisms, and  renders  many  words  and  expressions 
in  the  same  way  where  later  Targums  use  different  terms 
and  forms  of  speech,  though  in  some  instances  agreeing 
preferably  with  the  latter.  It  is  much  more  free  in 
dealing  with  the  text  than  the  so-called  Onkelos.     This 

Who  is  this  that  has  dared  to  disclose  my  secrets  to  men  ?  Jonathan 
stood  up  and  replied  :  It  is  I  who  have  revealed  thy  secrets  to  men ; 
and  thou  knowest  that  I  did  it  not  for  my  own  nor  my  parent's  glory, 
but  for  thine,  that  dissensions  might  not  be  multiplied  in  Israel.  But 
when  he  proposed  to  interpret  the  K'thubhira,  the  voice  was  heard  again 
admonishing  liim  to  refrain;  for  it  is  enough." — The  Talmudic  tract 
Masseketh  Megilla  quoted  in  Hody,  p.  172. 
'  Targum  der  Propheten,  p.  11. 


108  GENERAL  INTRODUCTION 

is  partly  attributable  to  the  character  of  the  prophetic 
writings,  and  the  need  of  paraphrasing  to  make  their 
meaning  clear  and  exhibit  their  application  to  the  expe- 
rience of  the  past  and  the  hopes  of  the  future  in  a 
manner  conformable  to  the  ideas  of  the  time.  In  the 
former  prophets,  which  are  historical,  and  in  portions 
of  the  latter  prophets,  it  often  translates  strictly.  In 
numerous  instances,  however,  it  makes  additions  which 
are  not  required  for  perspicuity,  and  introduces  legen- 
dary matter  which  quite  obscures  the  text,  and  has  no 
obvious  connection  with  it.  It  not  merely  substitutes 
literal  for  metaphorical  expressions,  but  undertakes  to 
expound  figurative  passages  in  detail  by  giving  a  sup- 
posed meaning  to  each  item  in  the  description.  Thus 
the  parable  in  Isa.  v.  1,  2,  is  not  translated  but  inter- 
preted throughout.  The  beloved  is  Israel  the  seed  of 
Abraham,  the  vineyard  is  the  land  given  them  for  an  in- 
heritance, the  horn  of  fatness  is  a  high  mountain,  the 
fencing  is  the  betrothal,  the  tower  is  the  temple,  the 
wine-vat  is  the  altar,  the  grapes  expected  are  good  works, 
those  actually  produced  are  iniquities.  It  was  first 
printed  in  1494  with  the  Hebrew  text  and  a  Babbinical 
commentary. 

Of  the  two  remaining  Targums  on  the  Pentateuch, 
one  is  commonly  called  the  Pseudo-Jonathan,  from  its 
having  been  erroneously  attributed  to  the  author  of 
the  Targum  on  the  Prophets.  The  other  is  only  ex- 
tant in  a  fragmentary  condition,  and  is  known  as  the 
Jerusalem  Targum.  Both  are  seriously  defaced  with 
legendary  additions,  contain  numerous  foreign  words, 
and  are  written  in  the  degenerate  Aramean  of  the  Je- 
rusalem Talmud.  Neither  the  Talmud  nor  any  early 
Jewish  writer  ever  speaks  of  the  Targum  of  Jona- 
than on  the  Pentateuch.  Mention  is  made  of  a  Pales- 
tine or  Jerusalem  Targum,  the  quotations  from  which 


THE   TARGUMS  109 

show  that  it  embraced  the  entire  Pentateuch.  These 
quotations  sometimes  con*espond  with  the  Pseudo-Jon- 
athan, sometimes  with  the  Jerusalem,  sometimes  with 
both,  and  occasionally  with  neither.  These  two  Tar- 
gums  are  strikingly  similar,  and  in  certain  portions  ab- 
solutely identical.  The  only  conclusion  possible  from 
these  facts  is  that  the  Jerusalem  Targum  formerly  ex- 
isted in  several  different  editions,  two  of  which  still  re- 
main, one  complete,  the  other  in  fragments.  Azariah 
de'  Rossi  speaks  of  having  seen  two  manuscript  Tar- 
gums  on  the  Pentateuch,  which  were  exactly  alike, 
word  for  word,  one  of  which  was  entitled  the  Targum 
of  Jonathan  ben  Uzziel,  and  the  other  the  Jerusalem 
Targum.  It  is  not  improbable  that  the  divergent 
names  may  have  arisen  from  a  misunderstanding  of  the 
abbreviation  'I'n,  which  was  read  Targum  of  Jonathan 
(inDT^  DIMn)  instead  of  Targum  of  Jerusalem  (D1S"in 
'^Tobcin'^).  The  inflated  character  of  this  Targum  made 
it  readily  susceptible  of  manifold  additions  and  altera- 
tions. Its  possessors,  desirous  of  having  it  as  com- 
plete as  possible,  inserted  in  the  margin  whatever  they 
found  in  other  copies  that  was  not  in  their  own ;  this 
was  by  future  copyists  added  to  the  text,  which  thus 
grew  in  variety  and  extent.  The  Pseudo-Jonathan 
now  only  exists  in  printed  form,  based  on  the  edition  of 
Venice,  1591.  The  manuscript  from  which  this  was 
taken  is  lost,  and  no  other  has  yet  been  discovered. 
There  is  one  manuscript  of  the  fragmentary  Targum 
in  the  library  of  the  Vatican,  from  which  it  was  first 
printed  in  the  Rabbinical  Bible  of  1518.  Some  extracts 
from  it  are  also  found  in  a  codex  in  Paris,  as  a  sequel 
to  the  corresponding  passages  in  Onkelos.  This  two- 
fold Jerusalem  Targum  is  based  on  the  simple  transla- 
tion of  Onkelos,  from  which  it  has  been  developed  by 
the  gradual  accretions  of  later  times,  and  when  these 


110  GENERAL  INTRODUCTION 

are  removed,  its  primary  form  is  still  in  a  measure 
discernible.  Geiger  proposed  a  very  improbable  theory 
reversing  this  order,  and  regarding  Onkelos  as  an 
abridgment  of  the  Jerusalem  Targum,  whereas  the 
consistent  principle  on  which  the  former  is  constructed 
throughout  clearly  marks  it  as  the  original.  The  Jeru- 
salem Targum  is  assigned  by  Zunz  to  the  second  half  of 
the  seventh  century. 

From  numerous  quotations  and  allusions  it  is  plain 
that  there  was  once  a  Jerusalem  Targum  on  the  Proph- 
ets, which  has  now  almost  entirely  perished.  A  brief 
fragment  of  it  has  been  found  on  the  margin  of  the  man- 
uscript numbered  154  by  Kennicott.^ 

The  Targum  on  Psalms,  Proverbs,  and  Job  has  been 
falsely  ascribed  to  R.  Joseph  (+  a.d.  325).  It  belongs 
to  a  much  later  date.  Proverbs  differs  from  Psalms  and 
Job  in  being  free  from  legendary  additions;  and  it 
seems  to  have  been  made  not  from  the  Hebrew,  but 
from  the  Syriac  version.^ 

The  Targum  on  the  Megilloth  is  not  so  much  a 
translation  as  a  paraphrastic  exposition,  which  runs 
to  the  greatest  excess  in  the  treatment  of  the  Song  of 
Solomon,  These  Targums,  as  well  as  that  on  Chron- 
icles and  the  so-called  second  Targum  on  Esther, 
probably  belonged  to  a  comprehensive  Jerusalem  Tar- 
gum on  the  Hagiographa,  which  was  of  late  origin, 
and  the  work  of  different  men,  but  of  the  same  general 
character. 

So  far  as  is  known  there  is  no  Targum  on  Daniel,  Ezra, 
or  Nehemiah.  The  Talmud  assigns  as  the  reason  why 
Daniel  might  not  be  translated  that  it  reveals  the  time 
of  Messiah's  advent.  But  as  these  are  the  books  in 
which  the  Aramean  sections  occur  (Ezra  and  Nehemiah 
being  reckoned  one),  it  is  probable  that  they  were  left 

'  Eichhorn,  Einleitung,  Ed.  4,  II.,  p.  99.  ^  jbjfj^  jj^  p^  io2. 


THE   SYRIAC    PESHITO  111 

untranslated  from  a  reluctance  to  mingle  an  uninspired 
version  with  the  sacred  text. 


The  Syriao  Peshtto. 

The  old  Syriac  version  was  called  the  Peshito  or 
simple,  which  has  been  variously  explained  as  denoting 
that  it  was  the  one  in  common  use,  or  indicating  its 
literal  character  as  a  translation,  or  its  adherence  to  the 
literal  as  opposed  to  allegorical  interpretations,  or, 
which  is  probably  the  true  solution,  its  simplicity  as 
one  single  translation  in  contrast  with  the  composite 
character  of  the  Syro-hexaplaric  version,  into  which 
extracts  from  different  translations  were  incorporated. 
Ephraem  Syrus  speaks  of  it  as  the  work  of  several 
translators  ;  and  his  statement  is  confirmed  by  the  dif- 
ference which  is  observable  in  the  style  and  character 
of  the  translation  in  different  books.  It  has  been  queried 
whether  the  version  was  made  by  Jews  or  Christians. 
In  favor  of  the  former  it  has  been  urged  that  it  was 
made  by  evidently  competent  translators  directly  from 
the  Hebrew,  and  not  from  the  Septuagint,  like  most  of 
the  early  Christian  translations  ;  and  that  it  agrees  in 
general  with  the  traditional  Jewish  interpretation.  But, 
on  the  other  hand,  the  close  affinity  of  the  Syriac  with 
the  Hebrew  would  account  for  an  acquaintance  with  the 
latter  language  on  the  part  of  Syrian  Christians  ;  there 
are  none  of  the  arbitrary  paraphrastic  additions  to  the 
text  characteristic  of  the  Jewish  thought  of  the  period 
which  abound  in  the  Targums ;  the  rendering  of  Messi- 
anic passages  agrees  better  with  Christian  than  Jewish 
ideas ;  and  the  lack  of  exactness  in  rendering  the  lists  of 
clean  and  unclean  animals  in  Lev.  xi.  and  Deut.  xiv.  in- 
dicates a  degree  of  indifference  to,  or  a  want  of  acquaint- 
ance with,  the  details  of  this  ritual  observance  which  is 


112  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

scarcely  supposable  in  a  Jew.  It  has  been  plausibly 
suggested  that  it  may  have  been  the  work  of  Christian 
Jews. 

It  is  one  of  the  best  of  the  ancient  versions  in  accu- 
racy and  general  excellence.  It  adheres  closely  to  the 
Hebrew  text  with  few  variations  ;  these  are  more  fre- 
quent in  the  Book  of  Psalms  than  elsewhere,  whose 
liturgical  use  and  often-repeated  transcription  might 
easily  introduce  textual  errors.  Its  agreement  in  many 
particulars  with  the  rendering  of  the  Septuagint  has 
led  some  scholars  to  suppose  that  the  translators  were 
aided  by  this  version  in  their  work.  But  its  divergence 
from  the  Septuagint  is  much  greater  than  its  corre- 
spondence with  it,  especially  in  difficult  and  important 
passages,  where,  if  anywhere,  dependence  upon  it  might 
have  been  expected.  Apart  from  such  coincidences  as 
might  occur  between  two  independent  translations  of  the 
same  work,  the  agreement  of  the  Peshito  with  the  Sep- 
tuagint seems  to  be  largely  due  to  its  having  been  sub- 
sequently altered  into  conformity  with  it  in  consequence 
of  the  high  esteem  in  which  the  Septuagint  was  held. 
That  such  changes  were  freely  made  is  apparent  from 
comparing  the  quotations  from  the  Peshito  in  Ephraem 
Syrus  with  the  text  yielded  by  manuscripts. 

The  origin  of  this  version  is  wrapped  in  obscurity ;  it 
was  made  in  a  period  of  which  we  have  no  written 
record.  It  is  itself  the  basis  of  the  Syrian  literature 
and  called  it  forth.  The  Syrian  Church  is  known  to 
have  existed  from  quite  early  times,  and  its  necessity 
would  require,  even  if  its  existence  did  not  presuppose, 
such  a  version.  Syrian  writers  record  a  tradition  that 
it  was  translated  in  the  time  of  the  Apostle  Thaddeus 
and  Abgarus,  king  of  Edessa,  and  under  their  direction. 
And  the  still  more  extravagant  claim  was  made  that  it 
was  in  part  prepared  in  the  time  of  Solomon  at  the  re- 


THE   LATIN   VULGATE  113 

quest  of  Hiram,  king  of  Tyre.  It  is  positively  known  to 
have  been  in  existence  in  the  fourth  century,  for  Eph- 
raem  Syrus  ( ^-  378)  made  it  the  basis  of  his  commenta- 
ries, and  spoke  of  it  as  then  in  common  use  in  the  Syrian 
Church.  Many  of  its  words  and  phrases  seem  to  have 
already  become  obscm^e  to  him,  or  at  least  to  have  re- 
quired explanation  to  make  them  intelligible  to  his 
readers.  The  probability  is  that  it  belougs  to  the  mid- 
dle of  the  second  century  A.D.,  and  emanated  from 
Edessa.  This  version  originally  contained  all  the  ca- 
nonical books  of  the  Old  Testament  with  the  exception 
of  Chronicles,  but  none  of  the  Apocrypha  ;  these  were, 
however,  at  an  early  period  rendered  into  Syriac. 

The  Peshito  continued  to  be  the  received  version 
throughout  the  whole  of  the  Syrian  Church  until  the 
separation  between  the  Monophysites  and  the  Nestori- 
ans.  The  Monophysite  bishop,  Paul  of  Telia,  in  a.d. 
618  prepared  a  new  translation  called  the  Syro-hex- 
aplaric  version,  because  it  was  made  from  the  Septuagint 
as  found  in  the  Hexapla  of  Origen,  retaining  all  its 
critical  marks.  It  is  slavishly  literal,  to  the  disregard 
of  the  proprieties  of  the  Syriac  language.  It  is  ex- 
tremely accurate  in  its  rendering  of  Greek  words,  and 
where  the  precise  meaning  could  not  be  otherwise  ex- 
pressed, the  Greek  word  itself  is  often  inserted.  It  is 
comparatively  easy,  therefore,  by  its  aid  to  reproduce 
the  text  from  which  it  was  translated,  and  Field  has  de- 
rived immense  advantage  from  it  in  his  attempt  to  re- 
store the  Hexapla. 

The  Latin  Vulgate. 

The  necessities  of  the  Western  Church  early  led  to 
the  preparation   of  Latin   versions  of  the  Scriptures. 
Augustin  informs  us  that  these  were  very  numerous. 
8 


114  GENERAL   INTT^ODUCTION 

He  says :  "  Those  who  have  rendered  the  Scriptures  f  ro.n 
Hebrew  into  Greek  can  be  numbered,  but  the  Latin 
translators  cannot,  for  every  one  into  whose  hands  a 
Greek  manuscript  came  in  the  first  periods  of  the  Chris- 
tian faith,  and  who  fancied  that  he  had  some  skill  in 
both  languages,  ventured  to  translate."  He  adds  that 
of  these  translations  the  Itala,^  so  called  probably  be- 
cause it  was  made  in  Italy  or  was  in  general  use  there, 
was  to  be  preferred  on  account  of  its  superior  accuracy 
and  perspicuity.  All  these  versions  were  based  upon 
the  Greek  throughout,  upon  the  Septuagint  in  the  Old 
Testament  and  the  original  in  the  New.  The  variety 
in  the  translations,  aggravated  by  erroneous  and  negli- 
gent transcription,  was  at  length  productive  of  such  con- 
fusion and  so  many  discrepancies,  that  the  complaint 
was  made  that  there  were  as  many  dijfferent  texts  as  there 
were  manuscripts.  Such  endless  diversity  was  natu- 
rally destructive  of  all  confidence  as  to  the  true  text  in 
quoting  Scripture  or  arguing  from  it.  Kepeated  solici- 
tations were  made  of  Jerome,  one  of  the  most  learned 
men  of  his  time,  and  equally  skilled  in  Hebrew,  Greek, 
and  Latin,  to  undertake  the  revision  and  correction  of 
the  existing  versions.  Accordingly,  during  a  visit  at 
Eome,  A.D.  382-384,  at  the  urgent  request  of  Damasus, 
bishop  of  that  city,  he  began  a  revision  of  the  gospels, 
then  proceeded  to  the  rest  of  the  New  Testament,  and 
after  this  to  the  Psalms,  which  he  hastily  revised  in  the 
first  instance.     Damasus  dying  near  the  end  of  384, 

1  The  attempt  has  been  made  to  reproduce  the  Itala  by  collecting  all 
the  citations  in  the  writings  of  the  early  Latin  fathers.  The  method 
was  highly  ingenious,  and  was  very  diligently  and  laboriously  carried 
into  effect,  but  it  did  not  lead  to  a  satisfactory  result.  For  the  fathers 
made  use  of  different  versions,  and  these  not  always  correctly  copied ; 
and  they  frequently  quote  from  memory,  giving  the  sense  but  not  the 
exact  words,  so  that  all  that  could  be  obtained  by  the  compilation  was 
a  mixture  of  different  versions  inaccurately  quoted. 


THE   LATIN    VULGATE  115 

Jerome  left  Rome,  and  after  spending  some  time  in 
Alexandria  took  up  his  abode  in  Bethlehem.  Here  he 
revised  the  Psalms  more  carefully  in  connection  with 
the  Hexaplaric  text,  employing  the  same  critical  marks 
that  had  been  used  by  Origen.  The  former  of  these 
revisions  was  adopted  at  Rome,  and  was  known  as  the 
Roman  Psalter;  the  latter  came  into  use  among  the 
churches  in  Gaul,  and  received  the  name  of  the  Gallican 
Psalter.  Jerome  continued  his  labor  of  correction,  un- 
til he  had  gone  over  successively  the  books  of  Job, 
Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes,  Song  of  Solomon,  and  Chron- 
icles, of  each  of  which  books  he  has  left  a  double 
preface  in  his  works ;  he  himself  speaks  at  a  later  time 
of  having  thus  corrected  the  whole  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. 

While  thus  engaged,  however,  he  became  satisfied  that 
no  simple  revision  of  previously  existing  versions  would 
meet  the  necessities  of  the  case ;  and  that  a  new  and 
independent  version  was  required.  They  were  made 
from  the  Septuagint,  which  in  many  cases  departed 
from  or  obscured  the  true  sense  of  the  inspired  writers. 
He  resolved,  therefore,  to  retranslate  the  entire  Old 
Testament  from  the  original  Hebrew,  procuring  for  that 
purpose,  at  considerable  expense,  the  assistance  of 
learned  Jews,  and  making  a  diligent  use  of  pre-existing 
Greek  versions.  In  this  he  was  encouraged  by  many 
warm  friends  who  shared  his  views,  and  earnestly  re- 
quested him  to  prosecute  the  work.  Great  prejudice 
was,  however,  awakened  by  it  in  the  minds  of  others. 
Such  was  the  veneration  with  which  the  Septuagint  was 
generally  regarded  on  account  of  the  supposed  inspira- 
tion of  those  who  prepared  it,  that  every  departure  from 
it  was  regarded  as  a  falsification  of  the  word  of  God. 
Even  Augustin  begged  him  to  desist  on  account  of  the 
offence  given  by  the  alterations  which  he  was  making, 


116  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

and  to  limit  himself  to  correcting  the  existing  versions 
into  accordance  with  the  Septuagint.  Jerome  perse- 
vered, nevertheless,  but  was  led  by  these  clamors  to 
keep  as  near  the  version  in  common  use  as  possible, 
and  even  to  retain  some  things  he  did  not  approve,  so 
that  the  rendering  which  he  prefers  in  his  commentaries 
often  differs  from  that  which  he  adopted  in  his  transla- 
tion. In  defending  himself  against  the  censures  and 
reproaches  which  were  heaped  upon  him  from  various 
quarters,  and  which  he  very  keenly  felt,  he  lays  great 
stress  upon  "  the  Hebrew  verity,"  and  the  importance 
of  supplying  the  Christian  Church  with  a  weapon  which 
they  could  confidently  use  in  their  controversies  with  the 
Jews ;  he  appeals  to  the  confirmation  derived  from  the 
later  Greek  versions  of  Aquila,  Theodotion,  and  Sym- 
machus,  and  puts  the  blame  of  the  divergence  of  the 
Septuagint  from  the  original  not  upon  the  translators  so 
much  as  upon  faulty  transcription.  He  began  his  trans- 
lation in  390,  but  did  not  complete  it  until  405.  It  was 
not  all  as  elaborately  prepared,  however,  as  this  length 
of  time  might  seem  to  indicate.  Some  parts  of  it,  at 
least,  were  hastily  performed.  Thus  he  speaks  at  one 
time  of  translating  a  thousand  verses  a  day,  and  of  hav- 
ing completed  the  translation  of  Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes, 
and  the  Song  of  Solomon  in  three  days.  His  occupa- 
tion with  the  Scriptures  for  so  many  years  gave  him  a 
facility  that  may  account  for  rapid  work  in  portions  w  ith 
which  he  was  especially  familiar.  Notwithstanding 
some  marks  of  undue  haste,  however,  the  limitations  to 
which  he  subjected  himself  in  order  to  conciliate  op- 
posers  and  the  absence  of  those  philological  aids  which 
are  within  the  reach  of  modern  interpreters,^  his  version 

'  He  seems  to  have  been  guided  by  the  importunity  of  friends  ad- 
dressed to  him  from  time  to  time  in  the  remarkable  order  in  which  he 
successively  took  up  the  books  of  the  Old   Testament.     "  He  first 


THE  LATIN   VULGATE  117 

must  be  accorded  the  precedence  above  all  others  of 
ancient  date. 

The  new  version,  though  it  was  at  first  viewed  with 
much  distrust,  and  its  introduction  into  the  public  wor- 
ship of  the  Church  was  impeded  by  the  strong  attach- 
ment of  the  people  to  the  translation  with  which  they 
were  familiar,  slowly  but  surely  worked  its  way  to 
general  favor.  Not  only  its  superior  accuracy  and 
greater  clearness,  but  its  better  style  and  purer  Latin 
gave  it  a  decided  advantage  over  the  old  version,  which 
it  gradually  displaced.'  Augustin's  early  scruples  were 
so  far  overcome  that  he  used  it  in  his  commentaries, 
though  he  seems  to  have  adhered  to  the  old  version  in 

translated  the  books  of  Samuel  and  Kings,  and  published  them  with 
his  often  mentioned  Helmed  Preface  (Prologus  Galeatus).  In  the 
latter  he  defended  himself  in  advance  against  the  assaults  which  he  ex- 
pected on  account  of  his  new  method  of  translation.  Then  followed 
the  Book  of  Job,  supposably  because  he  had  just  finished  revising  it 
in  accordance  with  the  Septuagint.  Next  came  all  the  prophets  in 
their  order;  and  after  them  the  Psalms.  A  long  sickness  here  inter- 
rupted his  literary  labors,  until  he  again  resumed  them  toward  the  close 
of  the  year  393,  with  the  translation  of  the  three  books  of  Solomon. 
In  the  years  394-39G  appeared  Ezra,  Nehemiah,  Chronicles,  and  Gen- 
esis ;  and  from  that  time  until  the  beginning  of  404  Exodus,  Leviticus, 
Numbers,  Deuteronomy ;  and  finally  in  this  and  the  following  year 
Joshua,  Judges,  Ruth,  Esther,  together  with  the  deuterocanonical  con- 
stituents of  Daniel  and  Esther,  as  well  as  the  books  of  Tobit  and  Ju- 
dith."—Kaulen,  p.  168.  He  translated  no  other  of  the  apocryphal 
books  than  those  just  named. 

'  The  early  Latin  versions  were  not  in  the  classic  Latin  of  the  best 
writers,  but  in  the  language  of  the  people,  which  chiefly  prevailed  in 
Italy  outside  of  Rome  and  in  the  provinces  ;  it  was  archaic  in  char- 
acter and  unaffected  by  Greek  culture.  This  shows  that  tliey  were 
made  at  a  time  when  Christianity  was  principally  confined  to  the 
humbler  strata  of  the  population.  The  language  of  Jerome's  version 
is  that  of  cultivated  Romans  of  the  fourth  century,  not  the  classic 
style  of  the  golden  age  of  Roman  literature.  Only  occasionally  his 
familiarity  with  the  Itala  led  him  to  retain  some  expressions  of  the 
popular  dialect. — Kaulen,  pp.  130,  181. 


118  GENERAL  INTRODUCTION 

his  preaching  and  the  services  of  the  Church.  In  some 
places  the  old  version  was  used,  in  others  the  new,  ac- 
cording to  the  individual  preferences  of  pastors  and 
people.  This  diversity  of  usage  is  clearly  reflected  in 
the  scriptural  quotations  found  in  the  writings  of  the 
fathers  down  to  the  close  of  the  sixth  century.  Thence- 
forward Jerome's  version  may  be  said  to  have  been 
universally  adopted,  and  to  be  entitled  to  be  called  the 
Vulgata,  or  the  translation  in  common  use.  This  term 
was  in  the  time  of  Origen  and  Jerome  applied  to  the 
Septuagint  in  contrast  with  other  Greek  versions,  and 
sometimes  in  a  more  special  sense  to  the  inaccurate 
copies  of  the  Septuagint  which  were  extensively  cir- 
culated in  contrast  with  the  more  limited  number  of 
corrected  copies.  It  is  a  matter  of  dispute  whether  it 
was  applied  also  to  the  Latin  version  made  from  the 
Septuagint.^  It  became  the  established  designation  of 
Jerome's  version  from  the  thirteenth  century  onward. 

The  simultaneous  use  of  Jerome's  version  and  the 
Itala  gave  occasion  to  the  frequent  correction  of  one  by 
the  other ;  and  this  combined  with  tne  errors  usually 
attendant  upon  transcription  introduced  a  diversity  of 
readings  as  great  as  that  which  existed  before  Jerome 
began  his  labors.  The  familiarity  of  transcribers  with 
the  old  version  often  led  them  in  copying  that  of  Jerome 
inadvertently  to  mingle  the  texts.  There  is  a  manu- 
script of  the  eighth  century  in  which  individual  verses 
and  even  whole  sections  are  taken  from  the  old  version, 
showing  that  the  copyist  had  this  before  him  as  well  as 
Jerome's  translation.     And  from  the  eighth  century  on- 

'  Van  Ess,  p.  25,  contends  that  the  erpression  "  vulgata,  communis 
editio,"  as  used  by  the  Fathers  before,  in,  or  after  the  time  of  Jerome, 
never  denotes  a  Latin  version.  Kaulen,  p.  10,  maintains  the  opposite. 
Roger  Bacon,  about  1266,  uses  the  expression  "  exemplar  vulgatum," 
which  is  the  first  time  that  the  word  vulgate  is  found  in  its  modern 
application. — Kaulen,  p.  251. 


THE   LATIN    VULGATE  119 

ward  there  is  a  manifest  disposition  to  retain  all  that 
was  in  the  Itala  additional  to  Jerome's  strict  rendering 
of  the  Hebrew.  This  led  sometimes  to  duplicate  ren- 
derings of  the  same  clause  or  sentence,  as  found  first  in 
one  version,  then  in  the  other. 

Various  attempts  were  made  to  remedy  the  disorder 
thus  arising.  Cassiodorus,  in  the  sixth  century,  with 
the  help  of  some  friends,  undertook  to  correct  the  text 
of  the  Psalter  and  the  Prophets  by  a  comparison  of  old 
and  valued  manuscripts,  and  gave  explicit  directions  to 
the  monks  of  his  cloister  for  their  guidance  in  copying 
the  Scriptures.  The  learned  Alcuin  was  commissioned 
by  Charlemagne  to  revise  the  text  of  the  Latin  Bible. 
He  completed  his  work  in  801,  and  it  was  adopted  as 
the  standard  throughout  the  kingdom.  A  large  number 
of  manuscripts  from  the  ninth  to  the  thirteenth  cen- 
turies still  exist,  which  were  conformed  to  this  revision. 
Successive  revisions  were  made  by  Lanfranc,  Archbishop 
of  Canterbury  in  the  eleventh  century,  and  by  Cardinal- 
deacon  Nicolaus  at  Rome  in  the  twelfth. 

This  process  of  individual  correction  did  not  restore 
unanimity  in  the  copies  of  the  Latin  Bible.  Accord- 
ingly a  new  method  was  inaug-urated  by  Stephen  XL  of 
Citeaux,  that  of  correction  by  corporations.  He  sought 
to  determine  the  text  not  only  by  a  collation  of  manu- 
scripts, but  by  a  comparison  of  the  original  Hebrew, 
in  which  he  had  the  aid  of  a  learned  Jew.  His  emenda- 
tions were  declared  the  accepted  standard  of  the  Cis- 
tercian order ;  and  subsequently  other  learned  bodies 
adopted  a  definite  form  of  the  text  as  their  own.  With 
this  view,  collections  of  various  readings  were  made 
called  Epanorthotge  or  Correctoria  Biblica,  in  which 
critical  judgments  were  passed  upon  these  readings, 
and  that  which  was  best  accredited.  These  were  pre- 
pared in  two  ways.     At  first  a  manuscript  of  the  Bible 


120  GENERAL   INTllODUCTIOX 

with  a  broad  margin  was  taken,  and  all  corrections  or 
remarks  that  were  thought  necessary  were  written  in 
the  margin  or  between  the  lines.  The  whole  manu- 
script was  then  copied  as  a  critical  edition,  or  the  crit- 
ical remarks  were  transferred  to  a  pre-existing  copy  of 
the  Bible.  At  a  later  time,  to  make  this  apparatus 
more  widely  useful,  the  remarks  were  copied  separately 
without  the  text,  and  the  body  of  various  readings  put 
in  circulation  for  the  correction  of  Bibles.  Their  in- 
fluence was  greatly  impaired,  however,  by  the  circum- 
stance that  they  were  rarely  copied  verbatim.  Fre- 
quently only  extracts  were  made  at  the  pleasure  of  the 
transcriber,  and  additions  of  his  own  were  inserted  if 
other  aids  were  not  at  his  command.  The  sources  of 
these  critical  remarks  were  various ;  they  were  based 
upon  the  original  Hebrew,  ancient  manuscripts,  the  com- 
mentaries of  Jerome,  the  writings  of  other  Fathers,  the 
Itala,  and  other  early  versions  and  later  authorities.^ 
The  first  Correctorium  of  which  we  have  any  knowledge 
is  that  of  the  University  of  Paris  about  1226,  which  was 
formally  approved  by  the  Archbishop  of  Sens  and  had 
a  very  wide  circulation.  Another  was  prepared  under 
the  direction  of  Hugo  St.  Clair,  the  Provincial  of  the 
Dominican  Order  in  1236,  of  which  an  improved  edition 
was  subsequently  issued.  One  of  less  importance  was 
published  by  the  Franciscans.  But  the  most  valuable 
of  all  the  works  of  this  description  was  that  which  was 
preserved  in  the  Sorbonne  at  Paris  in  the  fourteenth 
and  fifteenth  centuries,  and  was  long  supposed  to  have 
been  prepared  by  the  Sorbonne,  but  was  really  made 
up  by  combining  that  of  the  Dominicans  with  another 
Correctorium  of  unknown  origin. 

These  critical  labors,  however  valuable,  did  not  result 
in  unifying  the  text,  for  each  represented  a  separate  lit- 
'Kaulen,  p.  248. 


THE   LATIN   VULGATE  121 

erary  corporation,  and  transcribers  continued  to  accept 
or  reject  readings  at  their  own  pleasure,  or  to  introduce 
suggestions  from  other  sources.  Koger  Bacon  ( + 1284) 
writes  to  Pope  Clement :  "  The  text  is  for  the  gi-eater 
part  horribly  corrupted,  and  where  there  is  no  corrup- 
tion there  is  yet  much  doubt.  And  this  doubt  arises 
from  the  conflict  of  correctors,  for  there  are  as  many 
correctors,  or  rather  corrupters,  as  there  are  readers  in 
the  world,  because  every  one  presumes  to  change  what 
he  does  not  understand,  which  is  not  allowed  to  be  done 
in  the  books  of  poets.  For  antiquated  words  and  figu- 
rative expressions  are  not  changed  when  the  poets  and 
books  in  other  departments  are  read ;  but  here  every 
reader  makes  changes  out  of  his  own  head."  ^  Never- 
theless, it  is  observable  that  there  is  a  greater  measure 
of  uniformity  in  the  manuscripts  of  the  fourteenth  and 
fifteenth  centuries  than  there  had  been  previously,  so 
that  the  works  above  mentioned  were  not  altogether 
fruitless.  It  is  a  singular  fact  that  versions  in  modern 
languages  made  at  this  time  were  not  translated  from 
contemporary  manuscripts,  but  from  those  of  the  ninth 
and  tenth  centuries,  or  even  older,  showing  that  these 
still  continued  to  be  used  by  pious  people. 

The  invention  of  printing  opened  a  new  era  in  the 
history  of  the  Vulgate.  Instead  of  each  separate  copy 
being  laboriously  written  out  by  the  pen,  with  a  fresh 
accession  of  errors  at  each  transcription,  a  whole  edition 
could  now  be  issued  from  the  press  identical  in  every 
word  and  letter.  The  Latin  Bible  was  the  first  book 
ever  printed,  and  for  a  century  no  other  was  so  fre- 
quently and  largely  published.  The  first  edition  does 
not  specify  either  the  time  or  place  of  its  issue,  but  it  is 
known  that  it  appeared  at  Mayence  in  1450 ;  the  first 
that  is  dated  was  issued  at  the  same  place  in  1462. 
>  Hody,  p.  420. 


122  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

While  the  copies  of  the  Latin  Bible  were  thus  im- 
mensely multiplied  and  their  cost  greatly  reduced,  no 
special  care  was  taken  at  first  in  respect  to  the  text, 
which  was  printed  from  any  manuscript  that  came  to 
hand  or  from  any  edition  previously  published. 

Cardinal  Ximenes,  in  1502,  with  a  number  of  able 
scholars  whom  he  had  summoned  to  Alcala  for  the  pur- 
pose, began  a  careful  revision  of  the  Vulgate  on  the 
basis  of  exemplary  ancient  manuscripts  and  the  original 
Hebrew,  for  the  Complutensian  Polyglot,  which  was 
published  some  years  afterward.  It  nevertheless  gave 
great  offence,  and  Bishop  Nicolaus  Kamus  compared 
the  Yulgate  column,  which  w^as  interposed  between  the 
Hebrew  on  one  side  and  the  Greek  on  the  other,  to 
Jesus  Christ  crucified  betw^een  two  thieves.^  Erasmus 
sought  to  improve  the  Latin  of  the  Yulgate.  Various 
attempts  were  made  by  others,  both  Catholics  and  Prot- 
estants, to  correct  the  translation  by  the  original  He- 
brew, others  still  prepared  new  and  independent  trans- 
lations. All  this,  however,  served  to  increase  the 
confusion  already  existing  instead  of  relieving  it. 

At  length  the  Council  of  Trent  undertook  to  remove, 
by  ecclesiastical  authority,  the  discord  which  was  the 
accumulation  of  ages,  and  with  which  the  labors  of  a 
long  succession  of  scholars,  both  individually  and  con- 
jointly, with  all  available  external  helps,  had  proved 
unable  to  deal  effectually.  Accordingly,  in  its  fourth 
session  (April  8,  1546),  when  the  subject  of  the  Script- 
ures engaged  its  attention,  it  decreed  that  "  the  Vul- 
gate, which  had  been  approved  in  the  Church  by  the 
long  use  of  so  many  centuries,  should  be  held  authentic 

^  Cardinal  Ximenes  had  used  this  simile  in  his  preface  with  a  some- 
what different  application.  The  three  columns  were  so  placed  to  repre- 
sent the  Latin  or  Roman  Church  between  the  Synagogue  and  the  Ori- 
ental Church  as  Jesus  between  two  thieves. 


THE  LATIN   VULGATE  123 

in  public  reading,  controversy,  preaching,  and  exposi- 
tion, and  that  no  one  should  dare  or  presume  to  reject 
it  on  any  pretext  whatever."  This,  however,  would 
have  been  of  little  avail  amidst  the  diversity  then  exist- 
ing in  the  copies  of  the  Yulgate  if  no  measures  had 
been  taken  to  establish  some  one  standard  edition. 
Accordingly,  the  decree  of  the  Council  contained  an 
order  for  printing  it  with  the  utmost  possible  correct- 
ness.^ 

There  was  great  diversity  of  opinion  in  the  Council 
on  the  subject  of  this  decree.  A  considerable  minority 
were  in  favor  of  taking  no  action  at  present,  urging  that 
if  the  translation  were  corrected  into  accordance  with  the 
original  Hebrew  and  Greek  it  might  be  pronounced  au- 
thentic. But  this  would  be  the  work  of  years,  and  could 
not  be  undertaken  by  the  Council.  It  would,  conse- 
quently, be  safer  to  leave  things  as  they  had  been  for 
the  past  fifteen  hundred  years,  and  let  the  Latin  trans- 
lations be  examined  and  tested  by  the  original  texts. 
But  the  majority  insisted  that  this  would  be  to  disturb 
the  peace  of  the  whole  Christian  world,  to  play  into  the 
hands  of  the  Lutherans,  and  to  open  the  door  for  all 
sorts  of  heresies.  If  everyone  was  at  liberty  to  raise 
the  question  whether  the  translation  was  correct,  and  to 
take  refuge  in  the  originals  and  other  translations,  no 

'  This  decree  of  the  Council  of  Trent  follows  the  one  fixing  the 
canon  of  Scripture,  and  is  in  the  following  terms:  "Insuper  eadem 
sacrosancta  synodus  considerans  non  parum  utilitatis  accedere  posse  ec- 
clesiae  Dei,  si  ex  omnibus  latinis  editionibus,  quae  circumferuntur,  sac- 
rorum  librorum,  quaenara  pro  authentica  habenda  sit  innotescat,  statuit 
et  declarat,  ut  haec  ipsa  vetus  et  vulgata  editio,  quse  longo  tot  sajcu- 
lorum  usu  in  ipsa  ecclesia  probata  est,  et  in  publicis  lectionibus,  dis- 
putationibus,  praedicationibus  et  expositionibus  pro  authentica  babea- 
tur,  et  ut  nemo  illam  rejicere  quovis  praetextu  audeat  vel  praesumat 
.  .  .  decrevit  et  statuit,  ut  postliac  S.  Scriptura,  potissimum  vero 
haec  ipsa  vetus  et  vulgata  editio,  quain  emendatissime  imprimatur." 


124  GENERAL  INTRODUCTION 

one  would  know  w^hat  to  believe.  If,  in  the  providence 
of  God,  the  Synagogue  had  an  authentic  Old  Testa- 
ment, and  the  Greeks  an  authentic  New  Testament, 
surely  the  Eoman  Church,  which  is  dearer  to  Him  than 
all  besides,  must  be  provided  with  an  authentic  Bible. 
There  w^as  a  wide  discrepancy  also  in  respect  to  the 
sense  in  which  the  Vulgate  should  be  pronounced  au- 
thentic. Some  maintained  its  inspiration,  and  that 
Jerome  was  guided  in  his  translation  by  the  same  Spirit 
that  was  in  the  prophets,  or,  as  others  preferred  to  ex- 
press it,  a  Spirit  like  that  of  the  prophets ;  others  held 
that  the  Council  was  under  divine  guidance,  and  its 
sanction  would  make  the  version  infallible ;  and  others 
still  that  however  the  Vulgate  might  err  in  trivial  matters 
and  in  the  rendering  of  words,  it  could  not  be  charged 
with  errors  affecting  Christian  faith  or  morals,  as  the 
past  experience  of  the  Church  had  shown.^ 

If  this  decree  meant  no  more  than  to  give  ecclesiasti- 
cal sanction  to  the  Vulgate  in  preference  to  any  other 
Latin  version,  there  would  be  little  in  it  to  object  to. 
It  is  observable  that  no  anathema  is  attached  to  dis- 
obedience, as  in  the  decree  concerning  the  canon.  The 
Vulgate  is  not  in  explicit  terms  put  on  a  par  with  the 
originals  or  exalted  above  them.  There  is  no  direct 
prohibition  of  versions  in  the  languages  of  the  people, 
or  denunciation  of  Protestant  versions,  as  some  members 
of  the  Council  desired.  The  Vulgate  is  simply  pro- 
nounced authentic  as  opposed  to  other  Latin  editions 
then  in  circulation.  And  this  is  limited  to  public  eccle- 
siastical use  ;  no  restraint  is  put  upon  private  use  of  the 
Bible  in  any  form  whatever.  It  has  accordingly  been 
maintained  that  this  was  not  a  doctrinal,  but  a  disci- 
plinary, decree.  It  is  difficult  to  believe,  however,  that 
in  prohibiting  its  rejection  "on  any  pretext  whatever" 
'  Hody,  p.  489  f. ;  Van  Ess,  p.  211  f. 


THE   LATIN   VULGATE  126 

there  is  not  a  tacit  reference  to  the  originals.  The  well- 
known  sentiment  of  the  majority  of  the  Council  makes 
it  clear  that  the  intention  was  to  declare  that  the  author- 
ity of  the  Vulgate  must  not  be  disputed,  even  where  it 
clearly  departs  from  them.  It  certainly  was  so  under- 
stood at  the  outset.  And  this  has  been  defended  by 
alleging  that  the  originals,  as  we  possess  them,  are  cor- 
rupt and  untrustworthy,  and  that  the  Hebrew  in  partic- 
ular is  read  in  accordance  with  the  vowel  points,  which 
are  a  merely  human  addition,  so  that  it  is  better  to  trust 
a  version  made  by  a  competent  and  reliable  translator 
before  the  originals  became  corrupt,  and  before  the  He- 
brew was  marred  by  the  addition  of  the  vowel  points. 
Some  zealous  advocates  have  even  maintained  that  the 
originals  should  be  corrected  by  the  Yulgate,  and  not 
vice  versa.  All  this  is  palpably  contradicted  by  the  real 
facts  in  the  case.  There  are  ample  means  for  removing 
any  errors  that  may  have  crept  into  the  original  texts 
since  the  days  of  Jerome.  And  it  is  no  disparagement 
to  his  version  to  say  that  even  in  its  primitive  form  it 
could  not  be  put  on  a  par  with  the  text  from  which  it  was 
made.  And  that  version  has  suffered  unspeakably  more 
in  the  course  of  transcription  during  the  ages  that  have 
intervened  since  its  preparation  than  the  Hebrew  of  the 
Old  Testament  or  even  the  Greek  of  the  New  Testament. 
In  order  to  give  full  effect  to  their  decree  the  Couucil 
resolved  to  appoint  a  commission  to  correct  the  text  of 
the  Vulgate  and  have  it  printed.  Accordingly,  certain 
persons  were  deputed  by  the  Council  for  this  purpose, 
and  the  work  was  begun.  But  unexpectedly  a  mandate 
came  from  Pope  Paul  III.  to  his  legates  who  presided 
over  the  Council,  ordering  them  to  proceed  no  further 
in  the  correction  of  the  Bible  until  the  method  of  pro- 
cedure had  been  determined  by  the  Roman  assemblage 
of  Cardinals  to  which  was  committed  the  province  of 


126  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

governing  the  Council.  On  the  receipt  of  this  mandate 
the  Legates  ordered  that  ^vhat  had  already  been  done  in 
the  emendation  of  the  Bible  should  be  brought  to  them, 
and  that  the  commission  should  proceed  no  further  until 
they  received  fresh  orders.  At  length  the  Council  was 
terminated  in  1563  after  a  long  intermission,  and  its  de- 
crees were  confirmed  by  Pius  lY.^ 

Kaulen,  p.  427,  gives  the  following  account  of  the 
matter  from  a  Catholic  point  of  view  :  "A  commission 
of  scholars  was  appointed  by  the  Council  after  its  fourth 
session  to  revise  the  text  of  the  Yulgate,  and  this  set 
itself  at  once  zealously  to  work.  Little  Avas,  however, 
to  be  expected  from  their  labours,  since  there  was  a 
lack  at  Trent,  not  indeed  of  intelligence  and  experience, 
but  of  manuscripts  and  old  printed  copies  of  the  Vulgate. 
As  soon,  therefore,  as  the  laboui's  undertaken  for  the 
aforesaid  end  became  known  in  Rome,  Paul  III.,  through 
the  Cardinal  legates,  had  the  Trent  commission  stopped 
until  further  orders,  and  gave  command  that  the  material 
already  acquired  should  be  sent  to  Rome.  Here  the  in- 
vestigations which  had  been  begun  were  continued  with- 
out interruption.  Of  their  further  course  little  more  is 
known  from  the  years  next  ensuing  than  that  Cardinal 
Sirlet  was  one  of  the  most  zealous  members  of  the  com- 
mission appointed  for  this  purpose."  At  any  rate  noth- 
ing came  of  it. 

As  the  preparation  of  an  official  standard  copy  of  the 
Vulgate  lagged,  repeated  attempts  were  made  by  schol- 
ars as  the  professors  at  Louvain,  and  by  publishers  as 
Stephens  in  Paris,  Plautinus  in  Antwerp,  and  others,  to 
supply  the  need  by  fresh  issues  carefully  corrected, 
which  were  offered  to  the  public  as  answering  the  re^ 
quirements  of  the  Council,  and  entitled  to  be  regarde(3 
as  authentic  under  the  terms  of  its  decree. 

'  Hody,  p.  493. 


THE   LATIN   VULGATE  127 

At  length  Pope  Sixtus  Y.,  after  publishing  his  edition 
of  the  Septuagint  in  1587,  addressed  himself  to  the 
task.  For  this  purpose  he  invited  the  co-operation  of 
a  large  body  of  distinguished  scholars,  who  collated  a 
great  number  of  the  best  ancient  manuscripts  of  the 
Yulgate,  which  he  had  gathered  with  much  pains  and  ex- 
panse. They  likewise  compared  the  Scriptural  quota- 
tions in  the  writings  of  the  Fathers  and  occasionally 
r' ^sorted  to  the  originals,  but  cautiously  and  rarely,  as 
Sixtus  himself  explains,  so  as  not  to  disturb  what  had 
the  sanction  of  long-continued  use.  Sixtus  reserved  to 
himself  the  final  judgment  upon  all  the  readings  pro- 
posed ;  and  to  secure  perfect  accuracy  in  the  publication 
he  carefully  read  the  whole,  and  corrected  the  errors  of 
the  press  with  his  own  hand,  sometimes  by  the  pen, 
sometimes  by  printed  slips  pasted  over  the  mistakes 
which  were  discovered. 

The  prefatory  bull  accompanying  the  publication 
contains  this  announcement :  "  In  this  our  perpetu- 
ally valid  constitution  ...  we  resolve  and  de- 
clare from  our  certain  knowledge  and  from  the  plen- 
itude of  apostolical  authority  that  that  Vulgate  Latin 
edition  of  the  sacred  page  of  the  Old  and  New  Tes- 
tament, which  was  received  as  authentic  by  the  Coun- 
cil of  Trent  is  without  any  doubt  or  controversy  to 
be  reckoned  that  very  one  which  we  now  publish,  cor- 
rected as  best  may  be,  and  printed  in  the  printing  office 
of  the  Vatican,  to  be  read  in  the  universal  republic  of 
Christendom  and  in  all  the  Churches  of  the  Christian 
world,  decreeing  that  it,  approved  as  it  is,  first  by  the 
universal  consent  of  the  holy  Church  and  of  the  holy 
fathers,  then  by  the  decree  of  the  general  Council  of 
Trent,  and  now  also  by  the  apostolical  authority  deliv- 
ered to  us  by  the  Lord,  is  to  be  received  and  held  as 
true,  legitimate,  authentic,  and  undoubted  in  all  public 


128  GENERAL  INTRODUCTION 

and  private  controversies,  readings,  preachings,  and  ex- 
positions." ^ 

The  same  instrument  goes  on  to  prohibit  the  future 
publication  of  any  edition  of  the  Vulgate,  unless  con- 
formed to  this  in  every  particular ;  and  to  require  that 
all  previous  editions  should  be  corrected  into  accord- 
ance with  it,  and  that  the  same  thing  should  be  done 
with  all  missals,  breviaries,  and  other  church  books  con- 
taining passages  of  Scripture.  Any  disregard  of  these 
regulations,  it  is  affirmed  at  the  close,  would  incur  "  the 
wrath  of  Almighty  God  and  the  blessed  apostles  Peter 
and  Paul." 

This  edition  is  dated  1590.  The  distribution  of 
copies  had  scarcely  begun,  when  it  was  arrested  by  the 
death  of  the  Pope  on  the  27th  of  August  in  that  same 
year.  The  scholars  who  had  been  engaged  in  the  prep- 
aration of  this  edition  were  much  displeased  with  the 
changes  which  Sixtus  had  at  his  own  discretion  made  in 
their  work.  The  stringent  regulations  in  regard  to  mis- 
sals aud  other  church  books  created  wide-spread  dissat- 
isfaction, as  well  as  the  restrictions  laid  upon  private 
use,  though  the  Council  had  made  no  limitation  except 
in  regard  to  public  use.  Sixtus'  successor.  Urban  VII., 
died  thirteen  days  after  his  elevation  to  the  pontificate, 
and  was  succeeded  by  Gregory  XIV.  Urgent  represen- 
tations were  made  to  him  that  the  use  of  Sixtus'  edition 
should  be  publicly  prohibited.  Bellarmin,  however,  ad- 
vised that  this  should  not  be  done,  but  that  the  credit 
of  Pope  Sixtus  should  be  saved  by  correcting  what  had 
been  improperly  changed,  and  publishing  it  anew  under 
his  name,  with  a  preface  stating  that  some  errors  either 
of  the  printers  or  others  had  crept  into  the  first  edition 
from  undue  haste.  This  was  accordingly  done.  Gregory 
appointed  a  fresh  commission  to  revise  the  work,  who 

»  Van  Ess,  p.  279. 


THE  SAMARITAN   PENTATEUCH  129 

finished  their  task  with  great  expedition  in  nineteen 
days,  and  presented  the  result  to  the  Pope  in  October, 
1591.  Gregory  XIV.  died  on  the  fifteenth  of  this  month 
and  was  succeeded  by  Innocent  IX.,  who  died  December 
30th.  His  successor,  Clement  VIII.,  published  this  re- 
vised edition  in  1592  under  the  name  of  Sixtus  V.  The 
preface  was  written  by  Bellarmin,  in  which  he  says,  in 
flat  contradiction  to  the  fact  and  to  his  own  statement 
elsewhere,  that  Sixtus  V.,  when  his  book  had  been  print- 
ed and  was  about  to  be  given  to  the  public,  discovered 
that  a  few  errors  had  arisen  in  the  printing,  and  gave 
direction  that  the  whole  work  should  in  consequence  be 
recommitted  to  the  press.  His  death  prevented  the  ex- 
ecution of  his  purpose,  and  now,  in  the  beginning  of  the 
pontificate  of  Clement  VIII.,  the  work  which  Sixtus  V. 
designed  has  been  completed.  This  edition  of  1592  is 
the  officially  recognized  standard  copy  of  the  Vulgate.^ 

The  Samaritan  Pentateuch. 

The  Samaritan  Pentateuch  is  the  Hebrew  Pentateuch 
in  Samaritan  letters.  The  existence  of  the  Pentateuch 
among  the  Samaritans  seems  to  have  been  known  or  at 
least  suspected  by  European  scholars  in  the  latter  part 
of  the  sixteenth  century  ;  for  Joseph  Scaliger  at  that 
time  speaks  of  the  importance  of  procuring  copies  of  it, 
and  complains  of  the  negligence  of  Christians  travelling 
in  Palestine  in  not  securing  what  might  prove  to  be  of 
such  value  to  sacred  studies.  The  first  copy  that  was 
ever  brought  to  Europe  was  obtained  by  the  Italian 
Peter  della  Valle.  This  celebrated  traveller  spent  twelve 
years  in  the  East,  visiting  Turkey,  Egypt,  Persia,  and 

'  This  conflict  of  papal  authority  gave  rise  to  numerous  publications 
at  the  time,  among  others  to  the  Bellum  Papale,  sive  Concordia  Dis- 
cors  Sixti  V.  et  Clementis  VIII.  circa  hieronymianam  editionem,  by 
Thomas  James,  London,  1600. 
9 


130  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

India,  and  published  upon  his  return  to  Rome  the  best 
account  of  those  countries  that  had  then  appeared.  The 
Samaritans,  who  are  now  confined  to  a  few  inconsidera- 
ble families  in  Nablus,  seem  to  have  had  at  that  time 
small  communities  likewise  in  Cairo,  Gaza,  and  Damas- 
cus. Delia  Yalle,  at  the  instance  of  De  Sancv,  then 
French  ambassador  at  Constantinople,  undertook  to  visit 
them  and  procure  a  copy  of  their  law.  After  unsuccess- 
ful efforts  at  three  of  these  places  he  at  last  purchased 
two  manuscripts  from  them  in  Damascus  in  1616.  One 
contained  the  Hebrew  text  of  the  Pentateuch  in  the  Sa- 
maritan character  on  parchment,  which  he  sent  to  the 
ambassador,  who  deposited  it  in  the  library  of  the  Ora- 
toire  in  Paris ;  the  other,  on  paper,  was  a  Samaritan  ver- 
sion of  the  same,  which  he  retained  himself.  After  be- 
ing described  by  John  Morinus  in  the  preface  to  his 
edition  of  the  Septuagint  in  1628,  they  were  seventeen 
years  later,  in  1645,  published  for  the  first  time  in  the 
Parisian  Polyglot.  They  were  again  printed  in  the 
London  Polyglot  in  1657,  corrected  somewhat  by  the 
aid  of  additional  manuscripts  which  had  meanwhile 
been  procured.  Kennicott  collated  sixteen  manuscripts 
for  his  edition  of  the  Hebrew  Bible.  Their  respective 
ages  it  is  difficult,  perhaps  impossible,  to  determine  with 
certainty.  Of  those  which  are  dated  none  is  more 
ancient  than  the  thirteenth  century,  and  one  belongs  to 
the  sixteenth.^ 

'  Rev.  W.  Scott  Watson  a  few  years  since  succeeded  in  obtaining  a 
copy  which  was  written  in  a.d.  1232,  and  another  whose  oldest  portion 
is  dated  a.d.  656.     The  former  is  in  the  New  York  public  library. 

The  most  sacred  copy  of  the  law,  which  is  sedulously  guarded  in  the 
Synagogue  at  Nablus,  has  this  subscription,  "  I  Abishua,  the  son  of 
Phinehas,  the  son  of  Eleazar,  the  son  of  Aaron  the  priest,  wrote  this  copy 
in  the  court  of  the  tabernacle,  on  Mount  Gerizim  in  the  thirteenth  year 
of  the  settlement  of  the  children  of  Israel  in  the  land  of  Canaan."  Of 
course,  no  confidence  is  to  be  placed  m  this  statement. 


THE  SAMARITAN   PENTATEUCH  131 

The  origin  of  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch  has  been  a 
subject  of  vehement  dispute.  John  Morinus,  Kennicott, 
and  others  claimed  that  it  was  derived  in  the  line  of 
direct  transcription  from  the  Pentateuch  existing  in  the 
kingdom  of  the  ten  tribes  at  the  time  of  the  schism  of 
Jeroboam.  Prideaux,  Gesenius,  and  others  connect  it 
with  a  fact  narrated  by  Josephus  (Ant.,  xi.  7,  8)  of  the 
reign  of  Darius  Codomannus.  This  is  that  Manasses, 
brother  of  the  high-priest  at  Jerusalem,  had  married 
the  daughter  of  Sanballat,  prince  of  the  Samaritans. 
Threatened  by  his  brother  and  the  other  priests  with 
exclusion  from  the  priesthood  unless  he  put  away  his 
foreign  wife,  he  fled  to  his  father-in-law,  by  whom  a 
temple  was  built  on  Mount  Gerizim  as  the  rival  of  that 
at  Jerusalem,  and  Manasses  made  high- priest.  This  is 
in  all  probability  the  same  event  that  is  alluded  to  in 
Nell.  xiii.  28,  in  which  case  Josephus  has  made  the  mis- 
take of  attributing  it  to  the  reign  of  Darius  Codomannus 
instead  of  Darius  Nothus.  The  hypothesis  is  that  Ma- 
nasses carried  the  Pentateuch  with  him,  and  the  Sa- 
maritan copies  are  derived  from  it.  Le  Clerc  proposed 
an  intermediate  hypothesis,  which  has  met  no  favor, 
that  the  Pentateuch  was  brought  to  the  Samaritans  by 
the  priest  sent  to  teach  the  heathen  colonists  the  man- 
ner of  the  God  of  the  land,  2  Kin.  xvii.  28. 

The  following  arguments  have  been  urged  in  favor  of 
the  first-named  hypothesis : 

1.  As  both  the  tenor  of  the  history  and  the  language 
of  prophets,  who  like  Hosea  and  Amos  were  sent  exclu- 
sively to  the  ten  tribes,  prove  the  existence  of  the  Pen- 
tateuch in  the  northern  kingdom,  there  is  no  need  of 
supposing  any  other  origin  for  the  Samaritan  copy  than 
it  furnishes. 

2.  The  hostility  between  the  rival  kingdoms  of  Israel 
and  Judah,  and  subsequently  between  the   Samaritans 


132  GENERAL  INTRODUCTION 

and  the  Jews,  would  have  prevented  the  former  from  ac- 
cepting the  books  of  Moses  from  the  latter,  so  that  the 
Samaritan  Pentateuch  cannot  be  traced  to  any  origin 
later  than  the  schism  of  Jeroboam. 

3.  The  Samaritans  receive  of  all  the  books  of  the  Old 
Testament  only  the  Pentateuch  ;  if  other  sacred  books 
had  been  in  existence  at  the  time  when  they  borrowed 
the  Pentateuch,  it  is  natural  to  suppose  that  they  would 
have  taken  them  likewise. 

4.  The  Samaritans  would  not  have  desired  to  assist 
the  Jews  after  the  exile  in  rebuilding  their  temple,  Ezra 
iv.  1  ff.,  unless  they  were  in  possession  of  the  Pentateuch. 

5.  The  Samaritan  Pentateuch  is  written  in  the  old 
Hebrew  letter  in  use  before  the  captivity,  and  not  in 
the  square  character  which  the  Jews  subsequently  adopt- 
ed, and  which  the  Samaritans  might  have  been  expected 
to  employ  if  it  was  so  written  when  they  obtained  it. 

Upon  these  grounds,  which  certainly  have  a  plausible 
appearance,  it  was  confidently  affirmed  that  the  Samar- 
itan Pentateuch  must  have  sprung  from  copies  exist- 
ing in  Israel  at  the  date  of  the  schism.  And  this  was 
thought  to  furnish  a  strong  point  in  defence  of  the 
genuineness  of  the  Books  of  Moses  that  they  could  thus 
be  traced  back  by  two  independent  lines  to  such  a  re- 
mote period.  Indeed,  so  stringent  was  it  felt  to  be,  that 
some  opposers  of  the  Mosaic  authorship  were  con- 
strained by  it  to  admit  that  the  reduction  of  the  Penta- 
teuch to  its  present  form  could  not  be  later  than  the  time 
of  Solomon.  The  reasoning  above  recited  is  neverthe- 
less invalid.  Although  the  Pentateuch  did  exist  in  the 
kingdom  of  Israel  at  every  period  of  its  history,  the  Sa- 
maritans are  descended,  not  from  the  ten  tribes,  but 
from  the  heathen  settlers  who  were  imported  into  the 
land  after  it  had  been  desolated  and  Israel  carried  into 
captivity. 


THE   SAMARITAN   PENTATEUCH  133 

That  the  enmity  subsistiDg  between  the  Jews  and  the 
Samaritans  was  no  bar  to  the  latter  borrowing  the  re- 
ligious books  of  the  former  will  appear  from  considering 
the  causes  and  the  nature  of  that  enmity.  The  Samari- 
tans claimed  to  be  children  of  Israel  and  brethren  of 
the  Jews  as  often  as  it  was  their  interest  to  appear  so ; 
though  receding  from  their  claim  when  it  would  involve 
them  in  trouble  to  be  regarded  as  Jews.  Hence  the  de- 
sire of  the  Samaritans  to  assist  the  Jews  in  rebuilding 
their  temple.  Hence,  too,  their  proffers  of  assistance 
were  persistently  refused  by  the  Jews.  The  claim  of 
the  Samaritans  to  be  Israelites,  when  they  were  not, 
was  the  reason  of  the  hatred  which  the  Jews  felt  toward 
them.  The  refusal  of  the  Jews  to  admit  their  unfound- 
ed claim  was  the  ground  of  the  enmity  felt  by  the  Samar- 
itans. Hence  the  eagerness  of  the  Samaritans  to  grasp 
whatever  would  support  their  pretence.  They  aped  the 
Jews  in  everything;  their  doctrines,  their  temple  at 
Gerizim,  their  worship,  their  very  fables  were  borrowed 
from  the  Jews.  The  Pentateuch  was  coveted  by  them 
because  its  possession  might  seem  to  evidence  their 
Israelitish  origin. 

Their  exclusive  reverence  for  the  Pentateuch  was  not 
because  they  were  not  aware  of  the  existence  of  other 
sacred  books,  but  it  arose  out  of  the  nature  of  their  re- 
ligious system.  It  was  a  reason  of  the  same  kind  that 
led  some  heretics  in  the  early  periods  of  the  Christian 
Church  to  reject  the  Epistles  of  Paul,  and  others  to 
reject  everything  but  those  Epistles.  They  refused  to 
acknowledge  what  did  not  suit  their  creed.  It  was  an  arti- 
cle of  faith  with  the  Samaritans  that  on  Mount  Gerizim 
was  the  place  where  men  ought  to  worship.  According- 
ly, they  disavowed  all  those  Scriptures  which  recognized 
worship  at  Shiloh  or  on  Mount  Zion.  The  Pentateuch 
itself  was  altered  in  more  than  one  place  to  give  sacred- 


134  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

ness  to  Gerizim.  Joslina  is  connected  in  their  traditions 
with  the  building  of  the  temple  on  that  mountain. 
Moses  and  Joshua  were  held  in  great  esteem.  David 
and  Solomon,  from  their  connection  with  Jerusalem, 
were  objects  of  extreme  aversion.  From  their  point  of 
view  they  could  accept  no  portion  of  the  Scriptures  ex- 
cept the  work  of  the  great  legislator. 

Their  proposal  to  assist  the  Jews  in  rebuilding  the 
temple  after  the  exile  is  a  proof,  not  of  their  possession 
of  the  Pentateuch,  but  of  their  desire  to  be  counted  a 
part  of  the  Jewish  nation. 

And  while  the  Samaritan  character  is  older  than  that 
in  use  among  the  Jews,  this  is  no  criterion  of  the  time 
at  which  they  received  the  Pentateuch,  since  it  is  now 
universally  admitted  that  the  square  character  was  not 
introduced  by  Ezra.  And  even  if  the  Samaritans  had 
found  the  Pentateuch  in  the  square  letter,  they  would 
have  copied  it  in  the  character  in  use  among  themselves, 
as  they  do  at  present  in  writing  Arabic. 

The  opinion  that  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch  is  derived 
from  copies  existing  in  the  kingdom  of  Israel  at  the 
time  of  the  schism  is  now  abandoned  by  scholars.  And 
in  the  absence  of  any  definite  information  as  to  the 
time  when  the  Pentateuch  was  introduced  among  the 
Samaritans,  the  defection  of  Manasses  and  the  erection 
of  the  temple  on  Gerizim  suggest  the  most  probable 
occasion. 

On  comparing  the  Samaritan  with  the  Jewish  copies 
it  was  found  that,  while  agreeing  in  the  main,  they  yet 
differ  in  several  thousand  readings.  A  large  proportion 
of  these  consists  of  insertions  of  the  vowel  letters,  the 
insertion  or  omission  of  the  copulative  conjunction,  and 
other  variations  which  have  no  effect  upon  the  sense. 
Quite  a  number,  however,  are  of  greater  consequence. 
In  upward  of  a  thousand  of  its  characteristic  readings 


THE   SAMARITAN    PENTATEUCH  135 

it  agrees  with  tlie  Septuagiut  against  the  Massoretic 
text.  Here,  then,  arises  the  question  as  to  the  source 
of  these  variations  and  their  critical  value.  There  has 
been  the  greatest  diversity  of  views  upon  this  subject. 
On  its  first  appearance  many  were  disposed  to  entertain 
the  most  exalted  opinion  of  the  Samaritan  text,  and  to 
regard  it  as  much  superior  to  that  of  the  Jewish  copies. 
Others  have  held  that  the  Samaritan  should  be  esteemed 
aufciioritative  at  least  in  those  passages  in  which  it  agrees 
with  the  Septuagint.  Others  still  have  put  the  Samari- 
tan and  Jewish  copies  on  a  par  as  different  recensions 
of  equal  antiquity  and  equal  claim  to  authority.  But 
the  thorough  examination  of  the  subject  by  Gesenius 
has  shown  it  to  be  of  no  critical  value  whatever.  The 
manuscripts  are  not  written  with  the  same  care  as  those 
of  the  Jews,  and  differ  considerably  from  each  other ; 
many  errors  are  found  in  them  arising  from  the  inter- 
change of  similar  letters,  the  transposition  of  letters,  and 
inaccurate  orthography.  Yet  in  many  peculiar  readings 
they  all  concur,  and  some  of  these  are  known  from  the 
citations  of  Origen  and  Jerome  to  have  existed  in  the 
Samaritan  copies  in  their  day.  Aj^art  from  the  errors 
of  negligence,  however,  the  investigations  of  Gesenius 
have  shown  that  the  great  body  of  the  Samaritan  char- 
acteristic readings  are  intentional  alterations  of  the  text, 
the  reasons  for  which  can  still  be  assigned.  These  are 
divided  by  him  into  eight  classes,  under  each  of  which 
he  gives  a  large  number  of  examples. 

1.  The  first  is  that  of  grammatical  emendations.  Un- 
usual and  anomalous  forms  are  exchanged  for  those  in 
common  use,  archaisms  are  avoided,  lack  of  formal 
agreement  in  gender  and  number  is  corrected,  and  the 
vowel  letters  are  supplied  where  the  original  omits  them. 
In  many  cases  these  agree  with  the  K'ris  of  the  Jewish 
text,  which  had  a  similar  origin. 


136  GENERAL   INTKODUCTION 

2.  Explanatory  glosses  are  added  to  the  text. 

3.  Conjectural  emendations  are  introduced,  mostly  by 
the  change  of  a  letter  or  two,  to  improve  the  sense  or 
remove  some  fancied  verbal  difficulty.  Thus  in  the 
blessing  of  Jacob,  Gen.  xlix.  10,  "  The  sceptre  shall  not 
depart  from  Judah,  nor  the  ruler's  staff  from  between 
his  feet,"  v'^y\  his  feet  ^  by  the  change  of  1  into  %  is 
converted  into  1*^b!\"I  his  standards — "  nor  the  ruler's 
staff  from  amidst  his  standards." 

4.  Corrections  or  additions  for  the  sake  of  conformity 
with  parallel  passages.  Thus  in  Ex.  iv.  18,  the  father- 
in-law  of  Moses  is  called  in  the  Hebrew  text  "  Jether ; " 
the  Samaritan  has  **  Jethro,"  which  is  his  name  else- 
where. In  the  genealogy  of  Gen.  xi.  10,  "  and  he  died  " 
is  added  after  what  is  said  of  each  patriarch  as  in  ch.  v. 
And  whenever  a  partial  list  is  given  of  the  Canaanitish 
nations,  the  Samaritan  copies  insert  the  full  enumera- 
tion as  found  in  other  passages. 

5.  Larger  interpolations  of  sentences  and  even  several 
successive  verses  from  parallel  passages.  In  numerous 
instances  Exodus  is  thus  interpolated  from  later  pas- 
sages in  the  same  book  or  from  Deuteronomy,  in  order 
that  when  anything  is  referred  to  as  having  been  said 
or  done  by  Moses  it  may  always  be  stated  in  identical 
terms,  or  when  any  command  of  God  is  repeated  or 
obeyed  by  Moses  it  may  be  expressed  with  the  same 
fulness  of  statement  as  when  first  given. 

6.  Corrections  with  a  view  of  removing  some  sup- 
posed historical  or  other  difficulty.  Thus  the  four 
hundred  and  thirty  years  preceding  the  departure  of 
Israel  from  Egypt,  Ex.  xii.  40,  are  made  to  cover  the 
peregrinations  in  Canaan  as  well  as  the  settlement  in 
Egypt  by  changing  the  sentence,  "  Now  the  sojourning 
of  the  children  of  Israel  which  they  sojourned  in  Egypt 
was  four  hundred  and  thirty  years,"  so  as  to  read  "in 


THE   SAMARITAN   PENTATEUCH  137 

the  land  of  Canaan  and  in  the  land  of  Egypt."  In  this 
addition  it  agrees  with  the  Septuagiut.  The  most  re- 
markable variation  of  this  sort  is  in  the  genealogies  of 
the  antediluvian  and  postdiluvian  patriarchs,  found  re- 
spectively in  Gen.  v.  and  xi.  Here  the  Septuagint  and 
the  Samaritan  differ  both  from  the  Hebrew  and  from 
each  other ;  and  it  is  easy  to  discover  that  both  have 
been  altered  from  the  Hebrew  with  different  ends  in 
view.  The  Septuagint  has  corrected  the  antediluvian 
line  on  the  presumption  that  at  that  age  of  the  world  no 
one  was  less  than  one  hundred  and  fifty  years  old  at  the 
birth  of  his  first  son ;  and  when  anyone  is  stated  to 
have  been  a  father  at  an  earlier  age  than  this,  the  Sep- 
tuagint corrects  it  by  adding  one  hundred  years  to  the 
term  before  the  birth  of  the  son  and  subtracting  as 
many  from  the  subsequent  years  of  his  life,  so  that  his 
entire  age  remains  the  same.  On  the  contrary,  the 
Samaritan  assumes  that  no  one  would  be  more  than  one 
hundred  and  fifty  at  the  birth  of  his  first  son ;  when, 
therefore,  this  term  was  exceeded,  as  in  the  case  of 
Jared,  Methuselah,  and  Lamech,  one  hundred  years  or 
more  are  taken  from  it.  Then,  if  the  remaining  years 
were  left  unchanged  they  would  seem  to  have  survived 
the  flood ;  accordingly,  these  are  so  altered  as  to  make 
them  all  die  in  the  very  year  of  the  flood.  In  the  case 
of  the  postdiluvian  patriarchs.  Gen.  xi.,  the  Septuagint 
adds  one  hundred  years  whenever  anyone  is  said  to 
have  had  a  son  before  his  fiftieth  year,  except  in  the 
case  of  Nahor,  the  last  instance  of  the  sort,  where  fifty 
years  are  added  ;  and  the  remaining  years  of  their  lives 
are  so  altered  that  no  father  may  outlive  his  son,  and 
that  there  may  in  each  successive  generation  be  a 
diminution  in  the  term  of  human  life. 

Under  the  same  class  Gesenius  also  puts  alterations 
like  that  in  Ex.  xxiv.  10,  where  it  is  said  of  the  seventy 


138  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

elders,  that  "they  saw  the  God  of  Israel;"  here  the 
Samaritan  by  the  insertion  of  i<  changes  "iTfT'l,  "  and 
they  saw,"  into  ITHiCil,  "and  they  clave  to  the  God  of 
Israel,"  that  it  might  not  seem  to  contradict  those  pas- 
sages like  Ex.  xxxiii.  20,  which  declare  that  no  man  can 
see  God  and  live.  The  Septuagint  evades  the  same 
difficulty  in  another  manner  by  reading  "  they  saw  the 
place  where  the  God  of  Israel  stood." 

7.  Samaritanisms  in  words,  constructions,  inflections, 
or  orthography.  Samaritan  copyists  might  very  easily 
slide  into  their  native  forms,  terms,  and  idioms  in  the 
course  of  transcription. 

8.  Alterations  for  the  sake  of  conforming  to  Samari- 
tan ideas.  This  includes  the  removal  of  anthropomor- 
phisms and  anthropopathies  and  the  use  of  euphemisms. 
Jacob's  reproof  of  Simeon  and  Levi  in  his  last  words  to 
his  sons.  Gen.  xlix.  7,  is  converted  into  a  commenda- 
tion by  changing  nn*li^,  "  cursed  be  their  anger,"  into 
n^1i5,  "  noble  was  their  anger."  The  principal  passage  of 
this  kind  is  Deut.  xxvii.  4,  where  Moses  directs  that 
stones  should  be  set  up  on  Mount  Ebal,  and  the  words  of 
the  law  be  written  upon  them.  The  Samaritan  has  here 
changed  "  Ebal  "  to  "  Gerizim,"  where  their  temple  was 
built ;  and  the  passage  so  changed  has  been  twice  inter- 
polated elsewhere,  viz.,  after  Ex.  xx.  17,  Deut.  v.  21. 

There  are  only  four  passages  in  which  Gesenius  pre- 
fers the  Samaritan  to  the  Jewish  reading,  viz.,  the  in- 
sertion of  "  let  us  go  into  the  field "  in  Gen.  iv.  6 ; 
"  numbered  "  for  "  led  forth  "  his  trained  men,  Gen.  xiv. 
14 ;  "  one  ram  "  for  "behind  him  a  ram,"  Gen.  xxii.  13 ; 
"  a  bony  ass  "  for  "  an  ass  of  bone,"  Gen.  xlix.  14.  The 
general  meaning  would  not  be  affected  in  even  a  single 
instance  if  these  changes  were  accepted ;  but  other 
critics  of  note  do  not  favor  them. 

The  coincidence  between  the  Samaritan  and  the  Sep- 


THE   SAMARITAN   PENTATEUCH  139 

tuagint  in  so  many  characteristic  readings  cannot  be 
casual,  and  has  been  variously  explained.  Some  have 
held  that  the  Septuagint  was  made  from  a  Samaritan 
codex ;  others  that  the  Samaritan  has  been  altered  into 
conformity  with  the  Septuagint,  or  vice  versa;  others 
still  that  both  alike  were  made  from  a  recension  of  the 
Hebrew  differing  from  the  Massoretic  text.  Gesenius 
states  the  facts  of  the  case  as  follows : 

1.  The  agreement  is  largely  in  those  readings  which 
smack  of  a  gloss  added  to  the  text  or  a  conjectural 
emendation  of  difficult  places. 

2.  They  agree  in  trivial  things  which  do  not  affect  the 
sense,  and  in  the  transposition  of  words  or  letters,  and  in 
arbitrary  permutations.  Thus  the  copulative  conjunc- 
tion is  inserted  two  hundred  times  in  the  Samaritan, 
and  omitted  in  about  half  that  number ;  and  with  few 
exceptions  the  Septuagint  does  the  same. 

3.  In  added  glosses  the  Samaritan  goes  far  beyond 
the  Septuagint,  which  agrees  with  the  Hebrew  against 
the  Samaritan  almost  as  often  as  it  coincides  with  the 
latter.  The  Septuagint  nowhere  follows  the  Samaritan 
in  its  larger  interpolations,  nor  in  Samaritanisms. 

4.  In  smoothing  difficult  passages  the  Septuagint 
sometimes  adopts  one  conjecture,  and  the  Samaritan 
another,  as  was  shown  in  their  modes  of  dealing  with 
the  ages  of  the  patriarchs  in  Gen.  v.  and  xi. 

5.  The  Septuagint  sometimes  differs  from  the  Hebrew 
where  the  Samaritan  does  not.  This  mostly  concerns 
the  permutation  or  transposition  of  letters,  or  more 
frequently  still  in  supplementing  passages  from  their 
parallels. 

Gesenius  very  properly  rejects  the  notion  that  the 
Septuagint  was  made  from  a  Samaritan  original,  since 
the  Alexandrian  Jews  would  not  have  accepted  a  manu- 
script of  the  law  from  those  whom  they  hated  so  cor- 


140  GENERAL  INTRODUCTION 

dially.  He  thinks  that  the  most  satisfactory  hypothe- 
sis, and  the  one  that  is  freest  from  difficulties,  is  that 
the  Samaritan  and  the  Septuagint  were  both  made 
from  a  recension  of  the  Hebrew  differing  from  the  Mas- 
soretic  text.  He  supposes  that  there  was  a  recension  con- 
taining glosses  and  conjectural  emendations,  individual 
copies  of  which,  agreeing  in  most  but  not  all  of  their  read- 
ings, were  in  circulation  both  in  Alexandria  and  among 
the  Samaritans.  And  that  there  was  another  recension 
which  scrupulously  sought  to  preserve  the  primitive  read- 
ing even  in  places  where  it  was  difficult  or  obscure ;  and 
that  this,  though  not  absolutely  faultless,  was  in  vogue 
among  the  Jews,  particularly  in  Jerusalem.  This  would 
account  for  the  agreement  of  the  Septuagint  and  Sa- 
maritan in  so  many  trivial  matters,  while  their  differ- 
ences could  be  explained  by  the  various  readings  in 
different  codices  and  by  the  freedom  used  by  translators 
and  transcribers,  and  yet  more  by  the  fact  that  the  Sa- 
maritans continue  to  reform  the  text  in  the  various  ways 
spoken  of  above. 

On  the  other  hand,  Grotius  and  Archbishop  Ussher 
were  of  the  opinion  that  the  Samaritan  has  been  con- 
formed to  the  Septuagint.  And  when  we  consider  the  de- 
pendence of  the  Samaritans  upon  the  Jews,  from  whom 
they  borrowed  their  law,  their  religious  rites,  their 
modes  of  interpretation,  many  of  their  doctrines,  and 
their  legends  ;  and  when  we  remember  the  veneration 
with  which  the  Septuagint  was  regarded,  it  can  scarcely 
be  doubted  that  their  Pentateuch  was  modified  under 
Alexandrian  influence.  The  occasional  agreement  of 
the  Syriac  Peshito  or  Jerome  with  the  Samaritan  can  be 
similarly  explained.  The  Syriac  is  known  to  have  been 
corrected  in  numerous  instances  into  conformity  with 
the  Septuagint ;  and  Jerome  states  that  he  frequently 
retained   the   rendering   of    the  Septuagint    where    it 


THE   SAMARITAN    PENTATEUCH  141 

differed  from  the  Hebrew.  It  is  very  rarely  the  case 
that  the  Targums,  which  adhere  strictly  to  the  Massoret- 
ic  text,  agree  with  the  Samaritan  in  its  variations  from 
it.  When  they  do,  this  does  not  imply  that  they  had  a 
Hebrew  text  differing  from  the  present ;  they  only  ex- 
press in  their  rendering  the  same  traditional  gloss  which 
the  Samaritan  puts  in  the  text. 

There  are  two  versions  made  from  the  Samaritan  Pen- 
tateuch. One  is  in  the  Samaritan  language,  and  is 
thought  by  Winer  ^  to  date  from  the  second  century  a.d. 
It  appears  to  be  the  source  of  the  quotations  from  the 
"  Samaritan  "  in  the  writings  of  the  Fathers  of  the  third 
and  fourth  centuries,  with  which  it  almost  uniformly 
corresponds.  The  other  is  an  Arabic  version  attributed 
to  Abu  Said  of  the  eleventh  or  twelfth  century. 
'  De  Yersionis  Fentateuchi  Samaritanse  Indole. 


vn 

THE  HISTOEY  OF  THE  TEXT 

We  have  now  considered  the  primitive  form  of  the 
Old  Testament  Scriptures,  or  the  languages  in  which 
thej  were  originally  written ;  the  mode  of  their  preser- 
vation by  manuscripts ;  and  the  alternate  forms  in 
which  they  have  been  perpetuated,  or  the  ancient  ver- 
sions in  different  languages.  We  now  proceed  to  the 
contents  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  shall  first  consider 
the  history  of  the  sacred  text.  By  the  text  is  techni- 
cally meant  the  precise  words  of  the  inspired  writers. 
The  momentous  question  here  arises,  Is  there  good 
reason  to  believe  that  they  have  been  faithfully  trans- 
mitted to  us?  Through  what  vicissitudes  have  they 
passed  in  the  long  ages  that  have  elapsed  since  their 
first  appearance  ?  Have  the  requisite  pains  been  taken 
in  their  preservation  to  protect  them  from  wilful  mutila- 
tion or  negligent  transcription  ?  and  with  what  result  ? 

The  history  of  the  text  of  the  Old  Testament  may  be 
most  conveniently  divided  into  four  periods ;  the  first 
extending  to  the  cessation  of  inspiration  and  the  collec- 
tion of  the  canon  under  Ezra  and  Nehemiah ;  second 
the  period  of  the  Scribes ;  third  that  of  the  Massorites ; 
and  fourth  the  post-massoretic  period  reaching  to  the 
present  time. 

Of  the  first  period  but  little  is  known.  We  have  only 
some  incidental  hints  and  a  few  facts  from  which  con- 
clusions can  be  drawn  as  to  the  course  of  things.  Men- 
tion is  made  of  letters  carved  on  solid  materials.     The 

142 


THE  HISTORY    OF   THE   TEXT  143 

ten  commandments  were  engraved  upon  tables  of  stone, 
Ex.  xxxi.  18,  xxxii.  15,  16,  xxxiv.  1.  The  precious 
stones  of  the  high-priest's  breastplate  had  graven  upon 
them  the  names  of  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel,  Ex.  xxxix. 
14,  and  a  plate  of  gold  attached  to  his  mitre  bore 
the  inscription  "  Holiness  to  Jehovah,"  ver.  30.  A  copy 
of  the  law  was  written  by  Joshua  on  plastered  stones  set 
up  on  Mount  Ebal,  Josh.  viii.  32,  agreeably  to  the  direc- 
tion given  by  Moses,  Deut.  xxvii.  2-4.  Job  wishes  that 
his  attestation  of  his  innocence  might  be  graven  in  the 
rock  with  an  iron  pen,  and  filled  in  with  lead,  that  it 
might  endure  forever.  Job  xix.  24.  When  Jeremiah 
would  describe  the  conspicuous  and  indelible  character 
of  the  sin  of  Judah,  he  says  that  it  is  written  with  a  pen 
of  iron  and  the  point  of  a  diamond,  Jer.  xviii.  1.  The 
primary  signification  of  the  Hebrew  words  nnD  to  write, 
and  '^T\  statute^  imply  that  hard  materials  were  first 
used  for  writing  and  for  recording  laws  But  apart 
from  monumental  inscriptions  and  signet  engravings, 
there  is  no  indication  that  materials  of  this  description 
were  in  common  use  in  Old  Testament  times. 

Books  were  used  for  writing  whether  for  some  imme- 
diate purpose,  Ex.  xxiv.  7  ;  Num.  v.  23 ;  Josh,  xviii. 
9,  or  for  permanent  preservation,  Ex.  xvii.  14 ;  Deut. 
xxxi.  24,  26  ;  Jer.  xxxii.  10,  12,  14.  The  original  word 
(nso)  means  something  scraped  or  smoothed,  and  prob- 
ably indicates  that  they  were  made  of  skin  or  leather, 
as  among  the  early  Greeks  and  other  ancient  nations. 
The  same  thing  is  implied,  Num.  v.  23,  where  the  writ- 
ing was  washed  off  with  water  without  injuring  the  ma- 
terial. Perhaps  linen  or  paper  from  the  bark  of  trees, 
or  the  papyrus  may  also  have  been  employed.  The 
book  was  usually  in  the  form  of  a  roll,  Ps.  xl.  7  ;  Jer. 
xxxvi.  2,  23  ;  Ezek.  ii.  9  ;  Zech.  v.  2,  which  when  folded 
together  was  fastened  by  a  seal,  Dan.  xii.  4.     It  was 


144  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

written  in  columns,  Jer.  xxxvi.  23,  with  ink,  Jer.  xxxvi. 
18,  Ezek.  ix.  2,  and  a  pen,  Judg.  v.  14  (?) ;  Ps.  xlv.  1 ; 
Isa.  viii.  1,  probably  of  reed  cut  into  the  proper  shape, 
Jer.  xxxvi.  23. 

The  sacred  books  were  liable  to  the  same  casualties 
which  have  befallen  all  the  literary  products  of  an- 
tiquity. More  or  less  errors  were  inevitable  in  the 
course  of  repeated  transcription  through  long  periods 
of  time.  A  standard  copy  of  the  Books  of  Moses  was 
preserved  in  the  temple,  with  which  other  copies  could 
be  compared  and  corrected,  and  thus  guarded  from  er- 
ror. The  originals  of  some  other  books  may  have  lasted 
for  a  considerable  time,  and  so  have  been  available  for 
this  purpose ;  but  of  this  we  have  no  definite  informa- 
tion. The  veneration  with  which  the  sacred  writings 
were  regarded  as  the  product  of  inspiration,  and  in- 
vested with  divine  authority,  has  effectually  operated  in 
preserving  them  from  destruction,  while  all  other  writ- 
ings belonging  to  this  period  have  been  suffered  to 
perish ;  and  it  doubtless  led  to  special  care  in  their 
transcription,  though  it  is  probable  that  the  excessive 
scrupulosity  of  later  times  was  not  brought  into  requi- 
sition until  actual  experience  of  the  existence  of  diver- 
gent copies  had  demonstrated  its  necessity. 

In  the  inscription  of  king  Me,  ha  (who  is  spoken  of  in 
2  Kings  iv.  4,  5)  and  that  of  Siloah  (probably  dating 
from  the  reign  of  Hezekiah,  2  Kings  xx.  20),  and  in  some 
Phoenician  inscriptions  as  well  as  in  the  Samaritan 
Pentateuch,  each  word  is  separated  from  that  next  to  it 
by  a  dot.  This  makes  it  not  improbable  that  in  the 
early  Hebrew  writing  the  words  were  not  run  together, 
but  distinguished  either  by  a  dot  or  by  spacing.  The 
Talmudic  rules  for  copying  manuscripts  required  that  a 
space  equal  to  the  width  of  a  letter  should  be  left  after 
each  word.     It  is  not  necessary  to  suppose  that  this  wag 


THE   lUSTOKY    OF   THE   TEXT  145 

an  innovation  ;  it  is  quite  as  likely  that  it  was  simply 
an  adherence  to  ancient  custom.  The  few  instances  in 
which  words  are  improperly  divided,  or  the  Septuagint 
divides  differently  from  the  Massoretic  text,  may  easily 
be  accounted  for  on  the  same  principle  as  other  errors. 
The  old  form  of  the  Hebrew  letter  was  in  use  through- 
out this  period,  and  words  were  written  without  the 
vowels,  except  as  these  were  scantily  supplied  by  the 
vowel  letters. 

A  comparison  of  duplicate  passages  shows  the  exist- 
ence of  occasional  errors,  particularly  in  unfamiliar 
proper  names,  as  Dodanim  Gen.  x.  4,  but  Bodanim  1 
Chron.  i.  7 ;  Eiphath  Gen.  x.  3,  Diphath  1  Chron.  i.  6  ; 
Hadar  Gen.  xxv.  15,  Hadad  1  Chron.  i,  30;  Aram  2 
Sam.  viii.  13,  Edom  1  Chron.  xviii.  16 ;  or  numbers,  as 
seven  hundred  2  Sam.  viii.  4,  but  seven  thousand  1 
Chron.  xviii.  4 ;  seven  2  Sam.  xxiv.  13,  three  1  Chron. 
xxi.  12 ;  forty  thousand  1  Kings  iv.  26,  four  thousand  2 
Chron.  ix.  25 ;  twenty-two  2  Kings  viii.  26,  forty-two  2 
Chron.  xxii.  2.  Josh.  xv.  32  and  elsewhere  numbers  are 
given  at  the  end  of  lists  of  cities  which  are  not  equal 
to  the  particulars  contained  in  them.  These  may,  how- 
ever, be  explained  otherwise  than  as  errors  of  transcrip- 
tion. Villages  may  be  included  in  the  lists  which  are 
not  counted  as  cities  in  the  enumeration  ;  or  cities 
which  subsequently  grew  up  in  the  districts  described, 
may  have  been  inserted  to  complete  the  lists  without  a 
corresponding  change  of  the  numbers.  The  differences 
occurring  in  the  duplicate  Psalms,  such  as  Ps.  xviii. 
compared  with  2  Sam.  xxii.,  may  be  in  part  attributable 
to  the  mistakes  of  copyists,  but  in  the  main  they  are 
better  explained  as  the  result  of  a  revision  by  the  author 
himself  or  by  others,  or  as  Ps.  xiv.  and  liii.,  an  adapta- 
tion to  another  occasion.  The  inference  sometimes 
drawn  from  such  passages  of  a  lack  of  care  in  transcrib- 
10 


146  GENEEAL  INTRODUCTION 

ing  the  sacred  books  during  this  period  is  wholly  un- 
warranted. 

Stade  ^  has  the  conceit  that  the  collection  of  the  Canon 
was  accompanied  by  a  wholesale  falsification  of  Israel- 
itish  history  and  religious  life  ;  that  the  books  excluded 
from  the  Canon  gave  an  entirely  diiferent  version  of 
affairs  from  those  which  were  received ;  that  those 
which  were  admitted  to  the  Canon  were  carefully  re- 
vised in  order  to  bring  them  into  harmony  with  the 
views  of  the  collectors ;  everything  opposed  to  the 
ideas  then  prevalent  was  expunged,  whatever  seemed 
wanting  to  their  full  and  adequate  expression  was  in- 
serted ;  and  thus  they  were  made  to  represent  a  stage 
of  religious  development  remote  from  that  in  which 
they  were  actually  written,  and  to  express  ideas  foreign 
to  those  contained  in  them  in  their  original  and  genuine 
form.  All  this  is  spun  out  of  his  own  brain.  It  is  ab- 
solutely baseless ;  and  is  simply  a  conclusion  drawn 
from  a  critical  hypothesis  at  variance  with  the  facts  of 
the  Old  Testament,  and  which  requires  to  be  bolstered 
up  by  a  thoroughgoing  perversion  of  those  facts.  There 
is  no  reason  to  suspect  that  any  wilful  changes  were 
made  in  the  text  of  the  Scriptures  by  the  collectors  of 
the  Canon  for  any  cause  whatever. 

The  second  period  in  the  history  of  the  text  extends 
from  the  collection  of  the  Canon  under  Ezra  and  Nehe- 
miah  to  the  completion  of  the  Talmud  in  the  fifth 
century  a.d.  With  Ezra  began  the  race  of  scribes  who 
were  devoted  to  the  study  of  the  Scriptures  and  were 
the  custodians  of  the  sacred  text.  It  was  their  func- 
tion, as  they  understood  and  expressed  it,  "to  put  a 
hedge  about  the  law,"  i.e.,  to  ascertain,  defend,  and  per- 
petuate the  true  interpretation  of  Scripture,  and  to  pre- 
serve it  from  any  possible  error  in  transmission.  With 
'  Geschichte  des  Volkes  Israel,  I.,  p.  14  ff. 


THE   HISTORY   OF   THE   TEXT  147 

this  view  they  began  the  formation  of  that  body  of 
critical  observations  upon  the  text  known  as  the  Massora 
(tradition),  which  was  continued  and  enlarged  by  their 
successors  in  the  following  period.  They  even  counted 
the  number  of  letters,  words,  verses,  and  sections  in 
each  book,  and  noted  the  middle  letter  and  word,  which 
were  marked  in  some  cases  at  least  by  a  letter  of  un- 
usual size.  Other  letters  above  or  under  size,  or  out  of 
the  ordinary  form  or  position,  were  used  to  call  attention 
to  some  point  of  interpretation  or  hidden  sense  or  usage 
of  words  or  mode  of  writing  them  or  some  other  matter 
which  teachers  desired  to  inculcate  upon  their  pupils, 
but  whose  meaning  is  now  unknown.  All  this  is  spoken 
of  in  the  Talmud  as  ancient  and  the  work  of  the  early 
scribes.  The  minute  directions  in  the  post-talmudic 
tract  Sopherim  to  be  observed  in  copying  the  sacred 
books  were  now  formulated  at  least  in  part,  and  show 
the  rigid  supervision  exercised  and  the  extreme  care 
used  to  guard  against  the  intrusion  of  errors  as  far  as 
that  was  possible. 

In  this  period  occurred  the  change  from  the  old  to 
the  more  modern  form  of  the  Hebrew  letter,  not  by  the 
sudden  introduction  of  a  new  character  from  abroad, 
but  by  gradual  modification  largely  induced  by  the 
effort  after  regularity  and  symmetry  of  form  and  an 
elegant  calligraphy  befitting  the  sacred  task  in  which  the 
copyists  were  engaged.  There  is  no  reason  to  believe 
that  this  gradual  alteration  in  the  shape  of  the  letters 
had  any  effect  whatever  upon  the  substance  of  the  text. 

The  vowels  were  not  indicated  by  written  signs,  but 
the  pronunciation  was  fixed  by  a  steadfast  tradition, 
even  in  the  case  of  words  whose  written  form  is  am- 
biguous. This  is  shown  by  explicit  statements  of  the 
Talmud  and  Jerome.  The  different  pronunciation  rep- 
resented in  the  Septuagint  and  the  Hexapla  of  Origen 


148  GENERAL  INTRODUCTION 

is  tliat  of  Egyptian  Jews,  as  distinguished  from  that  of 
Palestine. 

The  definiteness  with  which  the  text  was  established 
is  shown  by  the  existence  of  K'ris,  of  which  the  Talmud 
makes  mention.  It  had  become  usual  in  reading  the 
Scriptures  to  substitute  Adhonai  (Lord)  for  the  divine 
name  Jehovah,  which  was  regarded  with  superstitious 
awe ;  to  emplo}^  customary  forms  and  constructions  for 
those  which  were  unusual,  and  euphemistic  expressions 
for  those  which  seemed  indelicate  ;  and  to  omit  certain 
words  that  were  deemed  superfluous,  and  introduce 
others  in  places  where  they  appeared  to  be  lacking. 
This  was  done,  however,  without  any  change  in  the 
written  text,  w^hich  was  considered  fixed  and  unalterable. 
The  K'ri  (that  which  is  read)  was  distinguished  from 
the  K'thibh  (that  which  is  written) ;  the  latter  remained 
in  the  text,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  traditional 
usage  had  given  the  preference  in  reading  to  the  former, 
which  was  for  the  present  only  preserved  orally,  and 
was  at  a  later  time  noted  in  the  margin. 

The  division  into  verses  was  already  ancient  in  the 
time  of  the  Talmud.  It  was  then  marked  by  the  dou- 
ble point  Soph  Pasuk  ( j ),  which  was  long  anterior  to  the 
written  accents  by  which  clauses  and  sentences  were 
subsequently  indicated.  Possibly  a  space  may  have 
been  left  at  the  end  of  a  sentence  from  the  first  in  He- 
brew writing ;  and  this  may  have  been  the  origin  of  the 
verses.  At  any  rate  exegetical  study  and  the  public 
reading  of  the  Scriptures  would  early  suggest  the  need 
of  such  divisions  and  establish  some  uniformity  in 
them.  In  the  poetical  writings  the  parallelisms  would 
of  themselves  determine  the  clauses.  And  direction  is 
given  in  the  Talmud  that  in  Ex.  xv.,  Deut.  xxxii.,  Judg. 
v.,  and  2  Sam.  xxii.  each  clause  should  constitute  a  line. 
Synagogue  manuscripts  as  a  rule  are  without  the  divis- 


THE  HISTORY   OF  THE  TEXT  149 

ion  into  verses.  The  Samaritan  Pentateuch  marks  the 
sentences,  but  not  the  Massoretic  verses ;  and  the  early 
versions  difter  considerably  from  the  Hebrew  text  in  the 
division  of  sentences.  The  Talmudic  enumeration  of 
verses  is  not  quite  identical  with  the  number  in  the 
Massoretic  text,  but  does  not  vary  materially  from  it. 
They  are  spoken  of  as  known  to  Ezra,  and  even  referred 
to  a  tradition  from  Moses  at  Mt.  Sinai,  which  implies 
that  they  originated  in  an  unknown  antiquity. 

The  division  into  sections  was  also  pre-talmudic. 
They  are  mentioned  in  the  Mishna,  and  often  in  the 
Gemara,  where  they  are  referred  to  a  tradition  from 
Moses.  Direction  is  there  given  in  copying  the  law  to 
preserve  the  Parashas;  accordingly,  they  are  found  in 
the  Synagogue  rolls.  The  number  of  these  sections  in 
the  Pentateuch  is  669.  They  are  of  two  kinds,  respec- 
tively denominated  ninins  ojpen^  and  ni'ainD  dosed. 
After  the  principal  sections,  which  indicated  the  main 
divisions  of  the  subject,  the  rest  of  the  line  was  left 
open,  the  following  section  beginning  a  new  line.  Af- 
ter the  minor  sections  or  subdivisions  of  the  matter  a 
moderate  space  was  left,  which  was  closed  by  the  follow- 
ing section  commencing  in  the  same  line.  In  printed 
Bibles  the  rule  respecting  open  and  closed  lines  is  not 
observed,  instead  of  which  these  sections  are  designated 
in  the  Pentateuch  by  the  initials  B  or  D  respectively. 
Similar  sections  in  the  other  books  are  simply  indicated 
by  spaces  without  the  letters  S  or  D.  These  sections 
are  for  the  most  part  appropriate  and  evidence  a  cor- 
rect understanding  of  the  text  on  the  part  of  those  by 
whom  the  division  was  made.  They  are  quite  distinct 
both  from  the  capitula  of  Jerome  and  the  sections  (l''2p) 
in  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch ;  in  the  latter  Genesis  is 
d leaded  into  250  sections,  and  the  entire  Pentateuch 
into  966. 


150  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

When  and  how  did  the  text  become  fixed  and  unal- 
terable as  we  find  it  in  the  time  of  the  Talmud  ?  Here 
we  are  without  definite  information.  Did  it  come  down 
as  a  determinate  text  from  the  time  of  the  collection  of 
the  Canon  ?  or  was  it  settled  by  a  gradual  process 
through  the  agency  of  the  scribes  ?  AVe  have  no  posi- 
tive means  of  knowing ;  and  opinions  are  formed  largely 
by  the  preconceptions  with  which  the  question  is  ap- 
proached. The  only  facts  of  importance  bearing  upon 
the  case  are  that  the  Septuagint  and  the  Samaritan 
Pentateuch  depart  considerably  from  the  Massoretic  text, 
while  the  later  Greek  versions,  the  Targums,  the  Tal- 
mud, and  Jerome,  adhere  closely  to  it  with  only  minor 
variations.  Does  this  mean  that  the  former  authorities 
were  inaccurate  and  the  latter  more  rigorously  exact, 
the  Hebrew  text  meanwhile  remaining  substantially 
stationary  ?  Or  that  these  various  authorities  faithfully 
represented  the  Hebrew  text  at  the  time  to  which  they 
severally  belong,  and  that  the  latter  underwent  through 
the  labors  of  the  scribes  that  measure  of  transformation 
which  the  differences  between  the  former  would  indi- 
cate ?  The  real  significance  of  the  facts  above  recited, 
and  the  inferences  properly  deducible  from  them,  will 
come  up  for  consideration  in  discussing  the  criticism  of 
the  text. 

Of  course  it  may  be  presumed  that  no  amount  of  care 
could  prevent  the  occurrence  of  occasional  errors  in  the 
course  of  frequent  transcription.  That  the  scribes  were 
on  the  alert  to  correct  such  errors  as  far  as  possible  by 
comparison  with  other  trustworthy  copies  is  certified  by 
a  statement  in  the  Talmud  that  three  manuscripts  of  the 
law  were  collated  on  a  particular  occasion,  and  the  tes- 
timony of  two  against  one  was  accepted  as  decisive  of 
the  true  reading.  In  our  ignorance  of  the  number  and 
character  of  the  manuscripts  available  for  a  particular 


THE   HISTOEY    OF   THE   TEXT  151 

book  at  any  giveu  time,  and  the  care  with  which  colla- 
tions were  made,  and  the  critical  skill  displayed  in  dis- 
tinguishing the  true  from  the  false,  we  are  not  in  a 
situation  to  revise  their  work  or  pass  judgment  upon  it. 
But  it  is  natui'al  to  suppose  that  where  so  much  pains 
was  taken  to  insure  correctness  by  men  devoted  to  the 
study  of  Scripture  and  possessed  of  an  almost  incredible 
familiarity  with  its  letter  in  its  minutest  details,  the  text, 
though  not  free  from  minor  defects,  would  on  the  whole 
be  safely  guarded. 

The  Jews  were  charged  by  the  early  Christians  with 
wilfully  altering  the  text  of  Scripture  to  the  prejudice 
of  Christianity.  But  it  is  nniversally  admitted  that  this 
was  a  mistake,  arising  from  the  fact  that  in  their  contro- 
versies the  Jews  refused  to  acknowledge  the  authority 
of  the  Septuagint,  and  appealed  from  it  to  the  Hebrew. 

Certain  critical  decisions  are  attributed  to  the  scribes, 
which  have  led  some  to  apprehend  that  they  meddled 
improperly  with  the  text,  and  even  made  changes  on 
theological  grounds.  Thus  the  Talmud  speaks  of  five 
instances  of  removal  by  the  scribes  (D^nsio  "n^DIP).  This, 
however,  was  simply  a  declaration  on  their  part  that  a 
conjunction  1  and^  which  was  not  in  the  text,  and  did 
not  belong  there,  should  not  be  inserted  in  reading. 
Gen.  xviii.  5,  xxiv.  55 ;  Num.  xxxi.  2  ;  Ps.  xxxvi.  7  (A. 
Y.,  6),  Ixviii.  26  (A.  v.,  25). 

In  the  Massora  mention  is  made  of  eighteen  instances 
of  correction  by  the  scribes  (D'^nsio  l^pn).  According 
to  Buxtorf  they  are  passages  in  which  one  might  sup- 
pose from  the  connection  that  the  writers  meant  to  ex- 
press themselves  differently  from  the  way  in  which  they 
actually  did ;  but  in  which  the  scribes  adhere  to  the 
correct  reading.^ 

'The  passages  in  question  are  Gen  xviii.  22;  Num.  xi.  15,  xii.  12; 
1  Sam.  iii.  13;  2  Sara.  xvi.  12,  xx.  1 ;   1  Kings  xii.  16;  2  Chron,  x.  16; 


1.02  GENERAL  INTRODUCTION 

The  extraordinary  points  over  certain  words  or  letters 
are  supposed  to  suggest  a  doubt  as  to  their  genuineness ; 
though  it  seems  that  this  was  not  sufficient  to  lead  to 
their  erasure. 

The  Talmuds  represent,  not  the  critical  but  the  her- 
meneutical  side  of  the  function  of  the  scribes  of  this 
period.  Their  laboriously  minute  interpretations  of  the 
law  in  its  application  to  every  conceivable  case,  which 
were  elaborated  generation  after  generation,  grew  into  a 
vast  body  of  jurisprudence.  This  was  at  first  preserved 
orally,  but  at  length  swelled  to  such  dimensions  as  to 
overtask  the  most  retentive  memory,  so  that  it  became 
necessary  to  commit  it  to  writing,  if  it  was  to  be 
perpetuated  and  enforced.  The  necessity  was  made 
more  urgent  by  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  and 
the  final  overthrow  of  the  Jewish  state.  Hence  the 
Mishna  of  E.  Judah  ha-Kadosh  in  the  second  cen- 
tury A.D.,  and  the  Jerusalem  and  Babylonish  Gemaras 
or  comments  of  later  Rabbis  in  the  fourth  and  fifth 
centuries. 

The  third  period  is  that  of  the  Massorites  in  the  more 
restricted  sense,  and  extends  from  the  sixth  to  the 
eleventh  century.  The  same  necessity  which  produced 
the  Talmud,  now  led  to  recording  the  critical  material, 
which  had  hitherto  been  perpetuated  only  by  oral  in- 
struction. One  most  important  addition  to  the  text  was 
the  introduction  of  written  signs  to  aid  in  its  pronun- 

Jer.  ii.  11;  Ezek.  viii  17;  Hos.  iv.  7;  Hab  i.  12;  Zech.  ii.  12;  Mai. 
i.  13;  Ps.  cvi.  20;  Job  vii.  20,  xxxii.  3;  Lam.  iii  20.  As  specimens 
it  18  said  that  in  Gen.  xviii  22  they  changed  "  The  Lord  stood  yet  be- 
fore Abraham  "to  "  Abraham  stood  yet  before  the  Lord ;  "  2  Sam.  xx. 
1,  ''Every  man  to  his  gods"  (I^Slbi^)  to  ''Every  man  to  his  tents" 
(T'bni^) ;  Hos.  iv.  7,  "They  have  changed  my  glory  into  shame"  to 
"  I  will  change  their  glory  into  shame."  All  which  looks  like  frivolous 
punning  upon  the  text  by  ingenious  alterations  of  its  meaning,  and 
casts  no  suspicion  upon  the  correctness  of  the  received  text. 


THE   HISTORY    OF   THE   TEXT  153 

ciation.  As  the  knowledge  of  Hebrew  was  diminishing 
by  the  lapse  of  time,  and  the  schools  were  waning,  it 
was  of  prime  consequence  that  the  imperfections  of  a 
purely  consonantal  alphabet  should  be  relieved,  and  its 
ambiguity  in  respect  to  the  pronunciation  and  the 
meaning  should  be  effectually  removed.  It  had  an- 
swered fairly  well  while  Hebrew  was  a  living  language, 
and  the  reader  familiar  with  his  native  tongue  could 
mentally  supply  what  was  defective  in  the  notation. 
But  this  could  no  longer  be  counted  upon.  Accordingly, 
while  the  consonantal  text  was  left  intact,  by  means  of 
diacritical  points,  vowel  signs,  and  accents  the  exact 
sounds  of  the  words  were  represented,  the  signification 
of  those  which  were  previously  doubtful  was  determined, 
and  the  limits  of  clauses  and  the  mutual  relation  of  the 
words  composing  them  was  indicated.  And  this  not  in 
an  arbitrary  manner,  but  in  accord  with  a  steadfast  and 
reliable  tradition. 

It  is  obvious  that  the  minuteness  and  complexity  of 
this  system  of  notation  greatly  increased  the  liability  to 
error  in  transcription.  Hence,  renewed  pains  were  taken 
to  guard  against  it  as  effectually  as  possible  by  extend- 
ing the  critical  observations  of  the  Massora,  which  had 
previously  concerned  merely  the  consonants,  to  this  new 
system  of  points.  The  number  of  times  that  particular 
words  occur,  or  that  they  are  written  in  a  particular 
way,  or  that  unusual  or  anomalous  forms  are  found,  and 
where,  and  much  more  of  the  like  sort  are  noted  with 
the  utmost  care.  These  observations  are  so  extended 
and  precise  that  it  is  possible  by  means  of  them  to  re- 
construct in  a  large  measure  the  exact  text  upon  which 
they  were  based.  These  critical  notes  were  at  first 
written  on  the  margin  (the  marginal  Massora)  or  at  the 
close  of  manuscripts  (the  terminal  Massora) ;  but  as 
they  increased  to  an  enormous  extent,  they  were  subse- 


164  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

quently  written  in  separate  volumes.  The  entire  collec- 
tion is  called  the  great  Massora ;  the  little  Massora  is 
an  abridgment  of  it. 

A  table  of  various  readings  affecting  the  vowels  ex- 
clusively, prepared  early  in  the  eleventh  century,  notes 
the  differences  between  the  standard  authorities  ben 
Asher  of  Palestine  and  ben  Naphtali  of  Babylon.  An 
earlier  list  of  differences  in  the  consonantal  text  between 
the  eastern  (Babylonish)  and  the  western  (Palestinian) 
is  printed  at  the  end  of  the  second  edition  of  Bomberg's 
Rabbinical  Bible. 

The  Massoretic  verses  are  substantially  the  same  as 
those  noted  in  the  Talmud;  the  differences  between 
them  may  be  accidental  or  may  arise  from  the  correction 
of  what  was  esteemed  an  improper  division.^ 

Two  different  modes  of  reading  the  Pentateuch  were 
observed  in  the  Synagogues  of  different  localities.  One, 
in  which  it  was  completed  in  one  year,  led  to  its  di- 
vision into  fifty-four  Parashas,"^  which  are  marked  in 
manuscripts  and  printed  editions  with  three  B's  or  o's 
of  large  size  according  as  they  begin  with  an  open  or  a 
closed  section.  In  one  exceptional  instance,  Gen.  xlvii. 
28,  a  Parasha  begins  in  the  midst  of  a  section.  Corre- 
spondent with  this  division  of  the  law  are  the  lessons 
selected  from  the  prophets  called  Haphtaras.  The 
Jewish  story  respecting  their  origin,  which  is  not  very 
credible,  is  tliat  Antiochus  Epiphanes  having  prohibited 
the  reading  of  the  law  in  the  Synagogues,  an  equal  num- 
ber of  sections  from  the  prophets  was  substituted  in 
their  place ;  which,  when  the  persecution  ceased,  were 

'  The  Talmud  reckons  5,888  verses  in  the  Pentateuch,  with  Lev  xiu 
3  as  the  middle  verse;  the  Massora  has  5.845  verses  and  Lev.  viii.  8 
the  middle  verse. — Ginsburs:,  Introduction  to  the  Hebrew  Bible,  p.  70 

"^  These  Parashas  were  finally  fixed  in  their  present  authorized  form 
in  the  fourteenth  century. — Buhl,  Kanon  und  Text,  p.  227. 


THE   HISTORY   OF  THE  TEXT  156 

still  retained  and  read  as  they  are  at  present  in  connec- 
tion wii;h  the  law.  The  other  mode  of  reading  the  law 
was  to  finish  it  in  three  years.  This  led  to  its  division 
into  154  or  167  Sedarim,  as  they  are  variously  num- 
bered ;  ^  the  number  in  the  entire  Bible  is  452.  The 
Talmud  states  that  the  annual  method  was  customary 
in  Babylon,  and  the  triennial  in  Palestine.  As  the 
former  became  the  general  practice  in  later  times  the 
Sedarim  are  not  commonly  marked  in  manuscripts,  and 
are  not  indicated  in  printed  Bibles. 

The  fourth  and  last  period  in  the  history  of  the  text 
is  the  post-Massoretic.  The  main  function  of  this 
period  is  the  faithful  transmission  of  the  Massoretic 
text  with  its  accessories.  The  division  into  chapters  is 
not  of  Jewish,  but  of  Christian,  origin.  It  was  first  in- 
troduced into  the  Latin  Bible  in  the  thirteenth  century, 
and  is  attributed  to  Stephen  Langton.  It  was  used  to 
facilitate  reference  in  the  concordances  to  the  Vulgate  ; 
and  was  adopted  for  the  same  purpose  by  Isaac  Nathan, 
about  1440,  in  his  Hebrew  concordance.  R.  Solomon 
ben  Ismael,  about  a.d.  1330,  was  the  first  to  note  the 
numbers  of  the  chapters  in  the  margin  of  the  Hebrew 
Bible.^  The  first  printed  edition  of  the  Hebrew  Bible 
in  which  they  were  thus  noted  was  the  Complutensian 
Polyglot,  in  1517.  The  edition  of  Arias  Montanus,  in 
1571,  was  the  first  in  which  the  Hebrew  text  was  broken 
up  into  chapters,  and  the  Hebrew  numerals  placed  in 
the  body  of  the  text  itself. 

The  enumeration  of  the  verses  was  first  introduced 
in  the  Hebrew  Bible  in  Bomberg's  edition  of  1547, 
in  which  the  number  was  noted  in  the  margin  oppo- 
site every  fifth  verse  by  the  appropriate  Hebrew  let- 
ters numerically  used.  Arias  Montanus,  in  the  Ant- 
werp Polyglot,  1571,  attached  Arabic  numerals  in  the 
>  Ginsburg,  pp.  32-65.  « Ibid.,  p.  25. 


156  GENERAL  INTRODUCTION 

margin  to  every  verse  throughout  the  whole  Hebrew 
Bible.i 

The  first  portion  of  the  Hebrew  Bible  ever  printed 
was  the  Psalms  with  the  commentary  of  Kimchi,  at 
Bologna,  in  1477.  The  Hebrew  Bible  was  first  printed 
entire  at  Soncino  in  the  Duchy  of  Milan  in  1488.  Only 
nine  copies  of  it  are  now  known  to  be  in  existence  in 
Europe.  A  second  edition,  undated,  is  supposed  to 
have  been  printed  at  Naples  somewhere  between  1491 
and  1493.  The  third  complete  edition  printed  at  Bres- 
cia in  1494  is  interesting  from  the  circumstance  that 
Luther  made  use  of  it  in  translating  the  Bible  into 
German.  The  edition  of  Athias,  in  1661,  was  based  on 
very  old  manuscripts,  and  has  been  generally  followed 
in  subsequent  editions. 

A  Kabbinical  Bible  is  one  which  in  addition  to  the 
original  Hebrew  contains  the  Targums,  the  Massoras, 
and  commentaries  of  the  Eabbis.  That  of  Daniel 
Bomberg  was  published  in  Venice ;  three  successive 
editions  were  issued,  the  first  in  1517 ;  the  second  in 
1525,  which  is  particularly  famous  as  containing  the 
Massora  collected  by  Jacob  ben  Chayim  and  a  text  con- 
formed to  the  Massora.  Buxtorf's  Kabbinical  Bible 
was  published  at  Basle  in  1618.  That  of  Amsterdam  in 
1724. 

By  a  critical  edition  of  the  Old  Testament  is  meant 
one  which  in  addition  to  the  received  text  of  the  orig- 
inal contains  a  critical  apparatus,  or  a  collection  of 
various  readings  gathered  from  manuscripts  and  ver- 
sions. The  most  noted  critical  editions  of  the  Hebrew 
Bible  are  that  of  Houbigant  published  at  Paris  in  1753, 
and  that  of  Kennicott,  in  two  volumes,  published  at  Ox- 
ford, the  first  in  1776,  the  second  in  1780,  and  contain- 

'  Ginsburg,  p.  167.  Prof.  G.  F.  Moore  in  the  Journal  of  Biblical 
Literature,  vol.  xii.,  p.  76. 


THE  HISTORY    OF   THE  TEXT  167 

ing  the  readings  from  694  manuscripts.  De  Rossi  pub- 
lished a  few  years  later  at  Parma,  in  1784,  the  various 
readings  obtained  from  several  hundred  more  manu- 
scripts, besides  early  printed  editions  and  ancient  ver- 
sions.    These  were  issued  without  the  text. 

By  a  Polyglot  is  technically  meant  an  edition  of 
the  Scriptures  exhibiting  at  one  comparative  view  the 
originals  and  one  or  more  ancient  versions  possessing 
critical  authority.  There  are  four  principal  Polyglots, 
the  Complutensian,  the  AntAverp,  the  Parisian,  and  the 
London.  The  Complutensian  Polyglot  was  so  called 
from  Complutum  (Alcala  in  Spain),  where  it  Avas  pre- 
pared and  published  by  Cardinal  Francis  Ximenes, 
Archbishop  of  Toledo,  with  the  assistance  of  several 
learned  men  connected  with  the  university  of  that 
place.  He  was  allowed  the  use  of  several  manuscripts 
from  the  Vatican  Library  by  Pope  Leo  X. ;  and  others 
were  purchased  by  him  at  a  vast  expense.  The  work  is 
said  to  have  cost  him  50,000  ducats.  It  consists  of  six 
volumes,  the  first  four  of  which  are  occupied  by  the  Old 
Testament ;  the  Hebrew,  Vulgate,  and  Septuagint  being 
arranged  in  parallel  columns,  to  which  in  the  Pentateuch 
is  added  the  Targum  of  Onkelos  at  the  bottom  of  the 
page.  The  fifth  volume  contains  the  Greek  New  Testa- 
ment and  the  Vulgate  in  parallel  columns,  and  the  sixth 
among  other  things  a  Hebrew  Grammar  and  Lexicon. 
The  volume  containing  the  New  Testament  was  the 
first  printed  in  1514 ;  the  last  was  printed  in  1517,  but 
in  consequence  of  the  death  of  Ximenes  the  work  was 
not  published  until  1522.  It  is  now  exceedingly  rare, 
as  only  six  hundred  copies  were  printed ;  three  copies 
were  struck  off  on  vellum.  The  story  was  for  some 
time  in  circulation  that  the  manuscripts  upon  which  this 
publication  was  based  had  been  sold  by  an  illiterate  li- 
brarian to  a  rocket-maker  as  useless  parchments  ;  this  is 


158  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

now  known  to  be  a  fabrication,  since  the  manuscripts 
belonging  to  Cardinal  Ximenes,  and  which  were  pre- 
served in  the  library  at  Alcala,  are  in  the  library  of 
the  University  at  Madrid.  Nevertheless,  the  Hebrew 
manuscripts  and  the  printed  editions,  from  which  the 
text  of  the  Complutensian  was  drawn,  have  not  been 
definitely  identified. 

The  Antwerp,  or  as  it  is  also  called,  the  Koyal  Poly- 
glot (Biblia  Kegia),  was  printed  at  Antwerp  in  eight 
volumes,  folio,  under  the  patronage  of  Philip  11.  of  Spain, 
in  1569-1572.  Its  text  was  based  on  the  Complutensian 
and  the  Bible  of  Bomberg,  and  was  followed  in  the  Pa- 
risian and  London  Polyglots.  It  contained,  in  addition 
to  what  was  to  be  found  in  the  Complutensian,  the 
Targum  of  Jonathan  on  the  Prophets  and  a  Targum  on 
the  Hagiographa.  The  last  three  volumes  contain 
grammars,  lexicons,  tables,  and  treatises  on  various  sub- 
jects, together  with  a  Latin  version  of  the  whole  Bible. 
Only  five  hundred  copies  of  it  were  printed,  and  a  large 
number  of  these  were  lost  in  a  voyage  to  Spain. 

The  Parisian  Polyglot  was  published  at  Paris  in  1645 
in  ten  volumes,  folio,  at  a  vast  expense,  and  the  publisher 
was  ruined  by  the  undertaking.  It  contained,  in  addition 
to  all  that  was  in  the  Biblia  Eegia,  the  Samaritan  Pen- 
tateuch with  the  Samaritan  version,  the  Peshito  of  the 
Old  Testament,  and  an  Arabic  version. 

The  London  Polyglot,  by  Bishop  Brian  Walton,  pub- 
lished in  1656  in  six  volumes,  folio,  made  several  additions 
to  those  which  had  preceded  it.  The  first  three  volumes 
contain  the  Old  Testament,  exhibiting  in  separate  col- 
umns the  Hebrew,  Vulgate,  Septuagint,  old  Latin  Itala 
as  restored  from  the  extracts  in  the  Fathers,  the  Pesh- 
ito, Targums,  and  an  Arabic  version  ;  to  which  are 
added,  in  their  proper  place,  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch 
and  version,  and  an  Ethiopic  version  of  the  Psalms  and 


THE  HISTORY   OF  THE   TEXT  169 

Canticles.  The  Targum  on  Chronicles  was  not  dis- 
covered until  the  work  was  in  the  press,  and  conse- 
quently does  not  appear  in  it.  The  fourth  volume  ex- 
hibits the  whole  of  the  Apocrypha  in  Greek,  Latin, 
S}Tiac,  and  Arabic,  together  with  two  separate  editions 
of  the  Book  of  Tobit  in  Hebrew.  Then  follows  the 
Pentateuch  according  to  the  Targum  of  the  Pseudo- 
Jonathan,  the  Jerusalem  Targum,  and  the  Persian  ver- 
sion of  Tawos.  The  New  Testament  occupies  the  fifth 
volume.  The  sixth  contains  various  readings  and  criti- 
cal remarks;  and  prefixed  to  the  whole  in  the  first 
volume  are  learned  and  valuable  prolegomena.  Ed- 
mund Castell  published,  as  an  appendix  to  this  work, 
his  Heptaglot  Lexicon  in  1669,  in  two  volumes,  upon 
which  he  spent  seventeen  years  and  the  whole  of  his 
fortune.  "  This  work  was  published  by  subscription 
under  the  patronage  of  Oliver  Cromwell,  who  permitted 
the  paper  to  be  imported  free  of  duty.  But  the  Pro- 
tector dying  before  it  was  finished.  Bishop  Walton  can- 
celled two  leaves  of  the  preface,  in  which  he  had  made 
honorable  mention  of  his  patron,  and  others  were 
printed  containing  compliments  to  Charles  11.  and  some 
pretty  severe  invectives  against  republicans."^ 

'  Home's  Introduction,  Bibliographical  Appendix. 


VIII 

THE  CRITICISM  OF  THE  TEXT 

The  word  criticism  is  derived  from  the  Greek  Kplva 
to  judge,  and  denotes  an  act  of  judging,  or  in  its  techni- 
cal sense  the  art  of  judging.  There  are  two  principal 
branches  of  Biblical  criticism,  as  of  literary  criticism 
generally,  which  are  respectively  denominated  textual 
criticism  and  higher  criticism.^  Higher  criticism  is  oc- 
cupied with  the  questions  of  the  genuineness,  integrity, 
and  trustworthiness  of  the  books  of  the  Bible.  It  in- 
quires whether  they  were  written  by  their  reputed 
authors,  whether  they  are  complete  and  unadulterated 
in  all  their  parts,  free  from  mutilations,  alterations,  or 
interpolations,  and  whether  they  are  a  reliable  and 
truthful  representation  of  the  mind  of  their  inspired 
authors,  and  of  the  times  and  circumstances  under 
which  they  purport  to  have  been  written.  Its  office  is 
to  ascertain  the  truth  in  regard  to  these  various  mat- 
ters ;  if  false  views  have  been  entertained,  to  refute  and 
dispel  them ;  if  these  writings  have  suffered  any  ma- 
terial injury,  to  detect  and  correct  it,  discriminating  the 
genuine  from  the  spurious,  and  the  original  from  what 
has  been  subsequently  added.  This  work  is  to  be  per- 
formed not  arbitrarily  nor  capriciously  at  the  mere 
pleasure  of  the  critic,  but  soberly  and  cautiously  after 

'  Various  other  terras  more  or  less  descriptive  and  appropriate  have 
been  used  to  designate  these  two  kinds  of  criticism,  such  as  book  criti- 
cism and  word  criticism,  or  internal  and  external,  or  rational  and  me- 
chanical, or  a  priori  criticism  and  a  posteriori  criticism. 

160 


THE   CRITICISM   OF  THE  TEXT  161 

carefully  examining  and  duly  estimating  all  tlie  facts  of 
the  case  and  all  the  considerations  bearing  upon  it. 

Literary  forgeries  in  ancient  and  in  modern  times 
have  been  detected  by  appropriate  tests.  A  noted  in- 
stance in  classical  criticism  is  found  in  the  so-called 
Epistles  of  Phalaris,  tyrant  of  Agrigentum  in  Sicily, 
which  long  enjoyed  a  high  reputation,  and  were  re- 
garded both  by  ancient  and  modern  authorities  as  the 
genuine  productions  of  their  reputed  author.  But  in 
his  celebrated  controversy  with  Boyle,  who  had  pub- 
lished an  edition  of  these  epistles  in  1695  and  was 
backed  by  all  the  learning  of  Oxford  University,  Bentley 
utterly  demolished  his  antagonist  and  his  cause,  prov- 
ing incontestably  that  these  epistles  were  the  fabrication 
of  some  sophist  belonging  to  a  much  later  period.  This 
was  shown  by  the  mention  of  the  names  of  cities  which 
were  not  built  until  long  after  the  time  of  Phalaris,  al- 
lusions to  tragedies  and  comedies  as  things  well  known 
and  of  ordinary  occurrence,  the  introduction  of  senti- 
ments and  expressions  manifestly  derived  from  later 
writers,  and  by  the  dialect  of  the  epistles  themselves, 
which  is  the  later  Attic,  such  as  was  the  language  of 
the  learned  in  the  latter  ages  of  the  Roman  empire.^ 

In  like  manner  it  can  be  shown  that  the  book  en- 
titled the  Wisdom  of  Solomon  could  not  possibly  have 
been  written  by  Solomon  himself;  and  that  the  ad- 
ditions to  Esther  and  Daniel  did  not  belong  to  these 
books  in  their  original  form.  There  is  no  real  objec- 
tion to  the  just  and  impartial  application  of  the  higher 
criticism  to  the  canonical  books  of  Scripture.  Criticism 
legitimately  employed,  so  far  from  betraying  a  want  of 
reverence  for  Holy  Scripture,  is  the  offspring  of  a  sacred 
regard  for  the  word  of  God,  which  cherishes  that  word 
too  highly  to  suffer  anything  that  is  purely  human  to 
'  Smith's  Dictionary  of  Greek  and  Roman  Biography,  Art.  Phalaris, 

ai 


162  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

remain  mingled  with  it.  But  a  style  of  criticism  which 
is  warped  by  naturalistic  prepossessions,  to  which  every 
prophetic  disclosure  of  the  future  is  an  anachronism, 
and  every  miracle  is  a  legendary  exaggeration,  and  rev- 
elations of  truth  must  be  pared  down  to  fit  in  with  some 
scheme  of  progressive  natural  development,  is  in  its 
principles  and  results  antagonistic  to  the  Bible,  and 
necessarily  leads  to  false  conclusions  corresponding  to 
the  false  principles  on  which  it  is  based.  Such  a 
method  of  treatment  must  as  a  matter  of  course  issue  in 
a  denial  of  the  genuineness  of  many  of  the  books  of 
Scripture.  And  the  literary  grounds  which  are  mar- 
shalled in  support  of  conclusions  thus  reached,  do  not 
alter,  even  though  they  may  partially  conceal,  the  ani- 
mus of  the  whole  proceeding.  Nor  does  the  fact  that 
professedly  evangelical  men  strangely  enough  are  will- 
ing to  accept  conclusions  wrought  out  by  those  whose 
principles  they  reject,  relieve  the  vice  inherent  in  the 
scheme  itself. 

The  other  branch  of  criticism,  and  that  with  which 
we  are  now  more  immediately  concerned,  is  textual 
criticism.  Its  function  is  to  determine  by  a  careful  ex- 
amination of  all  the  evidence  bearing  upon  the  case  the 
condition  of  the  sacred  text,  the  measure  of  its  corre- 
spondence with  or  divergence  from  the  exact  language 
of  the  inspired  penmen,  and  by  means  of  all  available 
helps  to  remove  the  errors  which  may  have  gained  ad- 
mission to  it  from  whatever  cause,  and  to  restore  the 
text  to  its  pristine  purity  as  it  came  from  the  hands  of 
the  original  writers.  Its  office  is  not,  as  the  excesses  of 
some  Biblical  critics  have  led  many  to  imagine,  to  sit  in 
judgment  upon  the  word  of  God,  and  to  take  from  it  or 
add  to  it  at  pleasure.  It  is  not  an  arbitrary,  but  a 
judicial,  process,  based  on  fixed  and  intelligible  prin- 
ciples, and  conducted  in  a  determinate  manner,  in  which 


THE   CRITICISM    OF   THE  TEXT  163 

all  the  evidence  is  diligently  collected,  thoroughly  sifted, 
and  accurately  weighed,  and  the  decision  given  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  ascertained  facts. 

The  sources  from  which  evidence  may  be  derived  that 
is  available  in  textual  criticism  are  either  external,  as 
manuscripts,  quotations  in  early  writers,  and  ancient 
versions ;  or  internal,  considerations  drawn  from  the 
text  itself  ;  and  when  everything  else  fails,  use  must  be 
made  of  critical  conjecture. 

If  manuscripts  were  not  liable  to  errors  in  transcrip- 
tion, their  testimony  in  every  case  would  be  final  and 
conclusive.  But  errors  may  arise  from  accident  or  de- 
sign. The  liability  to  accidental  errors  was  immensely 
greater  when  every  copy  had  to  be  written  separately 
by  the  pen,  than  now  when  from  a  single  form  of  types 
any  number  of  copies  exactly  corresponding  can  be 
struck  off.  But  with  all  the  care  that  is  taken  in  revis- 
ing the  proof,  few  works  issue  from  the  press  without 
more  or  less  errata.  A  second  transcription  would  not 
only  perpetuate  the  eiTors  previously  made,  but  intro- 
duce new  ones ;  and  thus  they  would  go  on  increasing 
in  arithmetical  progression  with  every  fresh  copy  that 
was  made.  These  errors  have  for  greater  distinctness 
been  further  classified  into  those  arising,  1.  From  the 
eye,  such  as  confounding  similar  letters,  transposing  let- 
ters or  words  ;  omitting  letters,  words,  or  sentences,  es- 
pecially when  two  sentences  end  alike,  and  the  second 
is  in  consequence  mistaken  for  the  first.  2.  From  the 
ear,  where  one  reads  and  another  writes,  and  letters  or 
words  of  similar  sound  are  mistaken  for  each  other. 
3.  From  memory,  where  a  writer  in  undertaking  to  re- 
produce a  clause  or  sentence  omits  or  transposes  a  word, 
or  substitutes  a  synonym,  or  conforms  the  sentence  to 
some  familiar  parallel  passage.  4.  From  defect  of  judg- 
ment in  erroneously  dividing  words,  misunderstanding 


164  GENERAL  INTRODUCTION 

abbreviations,  mistaking  letters  inserted  to  fill  a  void 
space  at  the  end  of  a  line  for  a  separate  word,  or  some 
marginal  remark  for  a  part  of  the  text. 

Intentional  alterations  have  been  made  in  the  text 
of  manuscripts  without  any  evil  design,  from  a  mistaken 
desire  to  correct  imagined  errors ;  thus,  an  easier  read- 
ing is  substituted  for  one  more  difficult,  supposed  slips 
of  the  pen  are  corrected,  apparent  omissions  supplied, 
sentences  made  more  classical  or  elegant,  or  assimilated 
to  parallel  passages. 

As  the  probability  is  that  errors  multiply  with  each 
successive  transcription,  those  manuscripts  which  stand 
nearest  to  the  original  autograph  may  be  expected  to 
have  fewer  errors  than  those  which  are  at  a  greater 
remove  from  it.  Other  things  being  equal,  the  oldest 
manuscript  is  to  be  preferred.  Another  consideration 
affecting  the  value  of  a  manuscript  is  the  care  with 
which  it  has  been  written.  If  there  are  no  slips  of 
the  pen  and  no  indications  of  negligence,  it  is  fair  to 
presume  that  it  is  in  general  an  accurate  copy  of  that 
from  which  it  was  made.  Its  worth  may  also  be  esti- 
mated by  the  general  agreement  of  its  text  with  that  of 
other  valuable  codices ;  its  correctness  in  the  main  thus 
ascertained  gives  weight  to  its  authority  where  it  stands 
alone. 

In  order  to  obtain  a  correct  text  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment many  hundreds  of  manuscripts  have  been  collated, 
and  their  various  readings  noted,  particularly  by  Kenni- 
cott  and  De  Rossi.  The  result  is  the  discovery  that  they 
are  throughout  in  substantial  agreement.  The  various 
readings  are  for  the  most  part  of  a  trivial  character,  not 
materially  affecting  the  sense.  All  Hebrew  manuscripts 
from  the  time  of  the  Massorites  have  been  conformed 
to  what  is  known  as  the  Massoretic  text,  which  has  been 
regarded  as  the  standard  authority.    All  deviations  from 


THE   CRITICISM   OF  THE  TEXT  165 

it  in  existing  manuscripts  are  due  to  unintentional  er- 
rors of  transcription,  or  in  a  few  instances  possibly  to 
corrections  by  copyists  on  the  basis  of  some  ancient 
version.  The  genuine  Massoretic  text  is  so  fenced 
about  by  the  multitudinous  critical  notes  of  the  Mas- 
sora  that  it  can  be  reproduced  with  remarkable  accuracy 
by  the  aid  thus  furnished.^  As  the  stream  cannot  rise 
higher  than  the  fountain,  it  is  impossible  by  means  of 
manuscripts  to  rise  above  this  text  so  as  to  form  an  in- 
dependent estimate  of  it  or  to  undertake  its  correction. 
This  can  only  be  done  by  the  assistance  of  the  other 
sources  of  criticism. 

The  Massoretic  text  was  not  the  creation  of  the  Mas- 
sorites.  They  found  an  established  text  already  in 
existence,  and  their  labors  were  directed  to  protect  it 
from  any  possible  deterioration,  and  secure  its  faithful 
preservation  and  accurate  transmission.  How  invio- 
lable the  text,  as  they  possessed  it,  was  felt  to  be  is  ap- 
parent from  the  K'ris  and  K'thibhs.  Where  a  different 
reading  was  preferred  to  that  in  the  text,  no  change  was 
made  in  the  latter,  but  the  preferable  reading  was  put 
in  the  margin. 

A  second  source  of  criticism  is  found  in  quotations 
in  early  writers,  or  in  remarks  made  by  them  from 
which  a  safe  conclusion  can  be  drawn  as  to  the  text 
existing  in  their  day.  The  value  of  such  quotations  for 
critical  purposes  is  mainly  dependent  upon  the  question 
whether  they  give  the  precise  words  of  the  passage 
cited,  or  whether  in  quoting  from  memory  they  are  only 
careful  to  preserve  the  sense  without  regard  to  the  ex- 
act language.  Only  a  probable  answer  can  be  given  to 
this  question,  which  must  be  judged  of  by  the  circum- 
stances of  each  individual  case.     If  stress  is  laid  upon 

'  The  most  successful  attempt  is  that  of  Baer  in  his  edition  of  the 
several  books  of  the  Hebrew  Bible. 


166  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

the  words,  or  the  form  of  expression  is  important  in  the 
matter  spoken  of,  or  is  set  in  contrast  with  the  language 
of  some  version  which  varies  from  it,  one  may  con- 
fidently conclude  that  the  passage  has  been  accurately 
quoted.  In  exhortations  or  practical  discourses  it  is 
less  likely  that  the  writer  has  concerned  himself  about 
the  precise  words  of  any  passage  of  Scripture  referred 
to  than  in  commentaries  or  controversial  writings  where 
greater  exactness  would  be  necessary. 

From  the  quotations  in  the  Talmud,  whether  in  the 
Gemara  of  the  fifth  century  A.D.,  or  the  Mishna  of  the 
second,  and  in  the  frequent  appeals  by  Jerome  in 
the  fourth  centuiy  to  "  the  Hebrew  verity,"  as  well  as 
the  testimony  of  Origen  in  the  third  century  in  his 
Hexapla  and  in  his  numerous  commentaries,  it  is  abun- 
dantly evident  that  there  was  at  this  early  period  a 
fixed  and  authoritative  Hebrew  text,  identical  in  the 
main  with  the  Massoretic  text  as  we  possess  it  at  pres- 
ent, and  this  was  interpreted  and  understood  in  accord- 
ance with  the  sense  yielded  by  the  Massoretic  vowels. 
The  existing  text  can  thus  be  determinately  traced  not 
only  through  the  manuscripts,  but  far  beyond  any  ex- 
tant manuscripts  to  the  Massorites,  and  beyond  them 
through  the  Talmud  on  the  one  hand  and  Jerome  and 
Origen  on  the  other,  century  by  century,  until  we  reach 
the  second  century  of  the  Christian  era,  where  we  find 
it  in  sole  and  undoubted  authority,  and  regarded  as 
handed  down  in  its  purity  from  the  time  of  Ezra  and 
that  of  Moses  himself.  Such  a  conviction  implies  that 
the  text  as  they  knew  it  and  had  received  it,  was  undis- 
puted and  of  long  standing. 

The  remaining  source  of  criticism  is  the  ancient  ver- 
sions. They  have  a  critical,  an  exegetical,  and  a  herme- 
neutical  value,  which  should  be  clearly  distinguished. 
By  their  critical  value  is  meant  the  aid  which  they 


THE   CRITICISM   OF   THE  TEXT  107 

funiish  in  determining  and  restoring  the  true  text  of 
Scripture.  By  translating  the  version  back  again  into 
the  language  from  which  it  was  made,  the  original  text 
ma}^  be  obtained  which  the  translators  had  before  them. 
Their  exegetical  value  is  the  aid  which  they  furnish  in 
rendering  difficult  words  and  expressions.  The  herme- 
neutical  value  arises  from  their  exliibiting  the  princi- 
ples, methods,  and  results  of  the  style  of  interpretation 
adopted  by  the  translators,  which  it  is  reasonable  to 
infer  was  that  of  their  contemporaries  likewise.  They 
thus  reveal  the  state  of  the  text  and  the  current  mode 
of  intei-preting  it  at  the  time  when  they  were  prepared, 
and  render  important  service  in  the  explanation  of  what 
is  obscure  and  in  determining  the  meaning  of  words  and 
phrases  of  rare  occurrence.  Different  versions  are  of 
unequal  value  in  these  respects.  A  version  may  be  of 
great  hermeneutical  importance  by  shedding  light  upon 
the  history  of  interpretation  and  yet  be  worthless 
critically  or  exegetically.  These  various  uses  are  inde- 
pendent of  each  other,  and  result  from  different  and  to 
some  extent  opposite  qualities  of  the  versions  in  ques- 
tion. 

In  order  to  have  any  critical  value  whatever  a  ver- 
sion must  be  ancient,  and  it  must  be  immediate.  Only 
those  versions  of  the  Old  Testament  are  held  to  be 
ancient  in  this  technical  sense  which  preceded  the 
period  of  the  Massorites.  No  version  made  since  could 
be  an  independent  witness  to  the  text,  for  it  could  only 
represent  more  or  less  perfectly  the  text  which  we 
actually  have  before  us.  An  immediate  version  is  one 
that  is  made  directly  from  the  original.  Those  made 
from  previously  existing  versions  are  called  mediate. 
A  mediate  version  may  be  useful  in  the  criticism  of  the 
version  from  which  it  was  derived  and  aid  in  restoring 
its  primary  text,  but  it  is  no  direct  witness  to  the  original 


168  GENERAL  INTRODUCTION 

text  and  cannot  be  employed  in  its  criticism  or  restora- 
tion. But  whether  a  version  is  mediate  or  immediate 
does  not  affect  its  hermeneutical  value.  It  must  be  im- 
mediate, but  not  necessarily  ancient,  to  be  useful  exe- 
getically  ;  its  value  in  this  respect  depends  solely  upon 
the  knowledge  and  skill  of  the  translator. 

Versions  do  not  represent  the  original  text  as  directly 
as  manuscripts  or  quotations  in  early  writers.  The 
latter  exhibit  it  in  its  proper  form ;  in  versions  the 
form  has  been  changed  by  the  transfer  into  a  different 
language.  Hence  there  is  a  double  liability  to  error  in 
their  employment  for  critical  purposes.  The  version 
may  be  defectively  rendered  and  so  represent  the  orig- 
inal inadequately ;  and  in  reversing  the  translation  in 
order  to  obtain  the  original  from  which  it  was  made 
fresh  errors  may  be  committed.  Great  skill  and  caution 
are  requisite  to  a  proper  use  of  versions  in  the  criticism 
of  the  text.  Every  deviation  of  a  version  from  the 
Massoretic  text  does  not  justify  the  assumption  that  the 
translator  had  a  different  text  before  him.  From  negli- 
gence or  want  of  knowledge  on  the  part  of  the  trans- 
lator, the  passage  may  be  carelessly  or  blunderingly 
rendered.  A  conjectural  sense  may  be  given  to  words 
or  phrases  that  were  imperfectly  understood ;  though 
even  the  mistakes  of  a  version  may  sometimes  afford  a 
clew  to  the  text  from  which  it  must  have  been  made 
that  such  mistakes  should  be  possible. 

The  translator  may  moreover  have  taken  considerable 
liberty  with  the  text  with  which  he  was  dealing.  Being 
more  concerned  to  make  the  version  useful  to  readers 
than  to  preserve  the  precise  form  of  the  original,  he 
may  give  a  free  rather  than  a  literal  translation.  He 
may  aim  to  give  the  general  sense  as  he  understands  it 
rather  than  to  render  it  word  for  word.  He  may  sim- 
plify passages  that  seem  obscure,  may  omit  what  seems 


THE   CRITICISM   OF   THE  TEXT  1G9 

redundant,  or  amplify  where  a  fuller  statement  would 
be  more  perspicuous.  He  may  resolve  figurative  expres- 
sions by  substituting  what  they  signify.  He  may  avoid 
forms  of  speech  peculiar  to  the  original  language,  or 
which  he  thinks  liable  to  be  misunderstood.  And  not 
only  in  the  substance  of  the  text  but  in  its  arrangement 
changes  may  be  made  with  the  idea  of  introducing  a 
more  desirable  order  or  improving  the  connection.  In 
these  and  other  ways  a  version  may  vary  considerably 
from  the  text  without  implying  that  a  different  text  lay 
before  the  translator.  A  version  so  prepared  might  be 
more  valuable  for  the  use  of  contemporaries  and  for 
exegetical  purposes,  but  would  yield  comparatively  little 
aid  in  criticism.  For  this  latter  jourpose  it  cannot  be 
too  slavishly  literal,  or  adhere  too  strictly  to  every  word 
and  particle,  or  follow  too  closely  every  idiomatic  ex- 
pression, however  foreign  from  the  modes  of  thought 
and  speech  of  those  for  whom  the  version  was  designed ; 
it  might  even  attempt  to  reproduce  the  etymology  and 
composition  of  words,  however  unintelligible  this  would 
make  it,  because  then  the  critic  can  with  greater  facility 
and  certainty  determine  the  precise  form  of  the  original 
from  which  the  translation  was  made. 

If,  on  the  other  hand,  the  version  is  a  paraphrase 
rather  than  a  translation,  giving  not  an  exact  rendering 
of  the  original  but  the  translator's  understanding  of  it, 
with  remarks  inserted  by  way  of  explanation  or  illustra- 
tion, and  interweaving  his  sentiments  with  the  text,  its 
hermeneutical  value  will  be  thereby  increased,  but  it 
will  be  of  Httle  service  in  the  way  of  criticism.  It  thus 
becomes  a  valuable  authority  in  the  history  of  opinion 
and  of  modes  of  interpretation,  but  valueless  for  the 
determination  or  restoration  of  the  original  text. 

Before  any  practical  use  can  be  made  of  a  version  in 
the  criticism  of  the  original,  a  careful  inquiry  must  be 


170  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

instituted  into  the  condition  of  the  version  itself  and  the 
purity  of  its  text.  Its  value  as  a  critical  aid  depends 
upon  the  accuracy  with  which  it  represents  that  copy  of 
the  original  from  which  it  was  made.  But  if  the  text  of 
the  version  has  itself  been  corrupted  in  the  course  of 
repeated  transcription,  this  coincidence  no  longer  exists. 
The  manuscripts  of  versions  are  liable  to  the  same 
sources  of  corruption  as  those  of  the  original,  and  re- 
quire the  same  means  of  correction.  Besides  this  they 
have  another  fruitful  source  of  corruption  peculiar  to 
themselves,  especially  when  there  is  more  than  one  ver- 
sion in  the  same  language,  viz.,  the  interpolation  or  cor- 
rection of  one  from  another  or  from  the  original.  This 
was  very  natural  for  transcribers,  who  were  not  so  much 
concerned  to  preserve  the  primitive  form  of  the  transla- 
tion with  exactness  as  to  furnish  it  to  the  reader  as 
much  improved  by  such  comparisons  and  alterations  as 
possible.  It  was  very  unfortunate,  however,  for  their 
critical  value. 

What,  now,  is  the  testimony  of  the  ancient  versions  re- 
specting the  state  of  the  Hebrew  text  at  the  time  that 
they  were  prepared  ?  The  Jewish  Targums,  which  cur- 
rently bear  the  names  of  Onkelos  and  Jonathan,  and 
received  their  present  form  in  the  fourth  century,  though 
based  on  much  older  materials,  presuppose  the  Masso- 
retic  text  with  very  slight  variation.  The  same  is  true 
of  the  Greek  versions  of  the  second  century,  Aquila, 
Symmachus,  and  Theodotion,  which  were  of  Jewish  or 
Ebionite  (Jewish  Christian)  origin  and  were  prepared 
with  the  distinct  purpose  of  giving  a  more  adequate  rep- 
resentation of  the  Hebrew  than  was  to  be  found  in  the 
Septuagint.  The  Latin  version  of  Jerome  in  the  fourth 
century  corresponds  in  general  with  the  Massoretic  text ; 
and  any  variations  from  it  are  sufficiently  explained  by 
his  own  confession  that  he  did  occasionally  depart  from 


THE   CRITICISM    OF  THE   TEXT  171 

the  Hebrew  in  his  translation,  contrary  to  his  own  judg- 
ment, as  a  concession  to  the  high  esteem  in  which  the 
Septuagint  was  held,  and  the  clamor  which  was  raised 
against  any  deviation  from  it.  The  Syriac  Peshito, 
w^hich  may  most  probably  be  referred  to  the  middle  of 
the  second  century,  is  in  accord  for  the  most  part  with 
the  Massoretic  text.  Where  it  agrees  with  the  Septua- 
gint in  deviating  from  it,  as  it  does  in  a  number  of  in- 
stances, the  probability  is  that  it  has  in  these  particulars 
been  altered  into  correspondence  with  that  version  in 
consequence  of  the  great  repute  in  which  it  was  uni- 
versally held  among  Christians.  We  are  thus  led  by 
the  witness  of  the  versions  to  the  same  conclusion  that 
was  reached  by  means  of  the  quotations  in  early  writers, 
that  so  far  back  as  the  second  century  of  the  Christian 
era  the  Hebrew  text  was  substantially  identical  with 
what  is  now  known  as  the  Massoretic. 

When  we  pass,  however,  to  prechristian  authorities, 
the  Greek  Septuagint  of  the  third  century  B.C.,  and  the 
Samaritan  Pentateuch  earlier  still,  we  find  a  consider- 
able d4-vergence  from  the  Massoretic  text.  The  ac- 
knowledged character  of  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch,  as 
this  has  already  been  exhibited,  deprives  it  of  all  weight 
as  a  critical  authority  where  it  differs  from  the  received 
Hebrew  text.  The  critical  value  of  the  Septuagint  has 
been  very  variously  estimated  by  scholars,  some  rating 
it  far  above  the  Massoretic  text,  others  regarding  it  as 
entitled  to  no  consideration  whatever.  The  extreme  ex- 
altation of  the  Septuagint  was  vehemently  urged  in  the 
seventeenth  century  in  the  interest  of  a  depreciation  of 
the  Hebrew  text  as  exceedingly  corrupt  and  altogether 
untrustworthy.  After  the  contest  had  been  opened  by 
John  Morinus  affirming,  and  Simeon  de  Muis  denying, 
the  superiority  of  the  Septuagint  text,  Cappellus  en- 
tered the  lists  as  its  champion.    He  undertook  to  show. 


172  GENERAL  INTRODUCTION 

in  his  "  Critica  Sacra,"  as  the  result  of  his  study  for  thirty- 
six  years,  that  the  readings  of  the  Septuagint  were  in  a 
multitude  of  instances  to  be  preferred  to  those  of  the 
Hebrew.  He  sought  to  prove  this  by  the  discrepancies 
in  parallel  passages  in  the  Old  Testament,  by  citations 
in  the  New  Testament  and  in  the  early  Fathers,  and 
by  a  comparison  of  other  ancient  versions.  This  work 
of  Cappellus  was  regarded  at  the  time  as  a  dangerous 
attack  upon  the  integrity  and  authority  of  the  orig- 
inal Scriptures,  and  its  publication  was  prevented 
for  ten  years  after  its  preparation.  At  last  his  son, 
who  had  meanwhile  gone  over  to  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church,  obtained  through  the  influence  of  Morinus 
and  others  royal  leave  for  its  publication  at  Paris  in 
1659. 

In  accounting  for  the  divergence  of  the  Septuagint 
from  the  present  Hebrew  text  it  has  been  held  on  the 
one  hand  that  the  Hebrew  text  of  that  period  was  in  a 
very  unsettled  state  ;  that  the  Septuagint  fairly  repre- 
sents the  manuscripts  from  which  it  was  made  ;  and  that 
the  unified  and  established  form  of  the  Hebrew  text,  as 
it  appears  in  the  second  century  A.D.,  was  the  result  of 
critical  labors  expended  upon  it  in  the  meantime  by 
the  scribes,  the  effort  to  obtain  a  uniform  and  uni- 
versally authorized  text  being  intensified  and  the  issue 
accelerated  by  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  and  the 
overthrow  of  the  Jewish  state,  which  turned  attention 
more  earnestly  than  ever  to  the  Scriptures  as  the  sole 
surviving  bond  of  union.  This  view  of  the  case,  it 
must  be  said,  is  largely  conjectural.  No  record  sur- 
vives in  Jewish  writings  or  in  any  others  of  the  critical 
reconstruction  of  the  text  which  is  here  assumed,  and 
from  which  such  important  consequences  are  deduced. 
Origen  and  Jerome  always  attribute  the  deviations  of 
the  Septuagint  from  the  Hebrew  text,  as  they  knew 


THE  CRITICISM    OF   THE   TEXT  173 

it,  to  errors  on  the  part  of  translators  or  transcribers ; 
and  they  never  intimate  a  suspicion  that  the  Hebrew  had 
itself  undergone  a  change. 

It  is  of  course  quite  possible  that  there  may  have 
been  very  inaccurate  and  carelessly  written  copies  of 
the  Old  Testament  Scriptures,  and  that  these  may 
have  gained  considerable  circulation  particularly  among 
Egyptian  Jews  and  others  outside  of  the  Holy  Laud, 
and  may  have  been  used  by  the  Septuagint  translators. 
But  if  this  were  so,  it  would  not  warrant  the  inference 
that  there  was  no  settled  and  authorized  Hebrew  text 
at  the  time,  and  no  standard  copies  in  which  it  was  to 
be  found,  and  from  which  it  was  transmitted.  Rever- 
ence for  the  Scriptures  and  regard  for  the  purity  of  the 
sacred  text  did  not  first  originate  after  the  fall  of  Je- 
rusalem. 

On  the  other  hand,  these  divergences  are  as  easily  and 
more  naturally  explicable  if  attributed  to  the  transla- 
tors than  to  copyists  of  the  original.  The  same  causes 
which  lead  to  a  modification  of  the  text  in  transcription 
would  be  operative  in  a  translation  in  an  aggravated 
form.  A  freedom  might  be  used  in  rendering  the  Script- 
ures into  another  language  which  would  not  be  thought 
of  in  transcribing  the  original.  A  measure  of  discretion 
must  be  allowed  in  a  translator  for  which  a  copyist  has 
no  occasion,  and  which  would  not  be  permissible  in  him. 
And  in  this  first  attempt  at  making  a  work  of  such  mag- 
nitude intelligible  to  those  of  a  different  tongue,  no  such 
rigorous  rendering  could  be  expected  as  would  be  de- 
manded from  a  modern  translator.  The  sacredness  and 
authority  of  the  original  would  not  attach  to  an  unin- 
spired version.  Accordingly,  accurate  precision  was  not 
aimed  at  so  much  as  conveying  the  general  sense,  and 
in  this  the  translators  allowed  themselves  a  large  meas- 
ure of  liberty.     When   to  this   is  added  an   imperfect 


174  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

knowledge  of  Hebrew,  conjectural  renderings  or  para- 
phrases of  words  and  passages  not  understood,  slips 
arising  from  want  of  care  and  the  like,  it  is  easy  to  un- 
derstand how  the  general  correctness  of  the  Septuagint 
might  consist  with  very  considerable  deviations  from 
the  original  text. 

Some  critics  still  inordinately  exalt  the  critical  value 
of  the  Septuagint,  and  are  disposed  to  make  frequent 
changes  in  the  Hebrew  text  on  its  authority.  But  there 
is  a  general  agreement  among  careful  scholars  that, 
while  this  version  is  to  be  highly  esteemed  for  its  an- 
tiquity, and  the  general  testimony  which  it  renders  to 
the  integrity  of  the  existing  text,  and  the  aid  which  it 
furnishes  in  the  rendering  of  obscure  and  doubtful  pas- 
sages, the  Massoretic  text  is  on  the  whole  vastly  superior 
to  it,  and  should  not  be  corrected  by  it,  except  where 
there  are  stringent  reasons  for  so  doing ;  and  that  in 
the  great  majority  of  cases  where  a  divergence  exists, 
the  presumption  is  strongly  in  favor  of  the  correctness 
of  the  Hebrew  and  against  the  Septuagint.  Neither 
the  original  character  of  the  latter,  nor  the  history  of  its 
preservation,  nor  the  present  state  of  its  text  entitles  it 
to  the  precedence.  Only  in  cases  where  there  are  inde- 
pendent reasons  for  suspecting  the  accuracy  of  the 
Hebrew,  can  emendations  by  the  Septuagint  be  reason- 
ably admitted. 

In  estimating  the  separate  value  of  the  various  read- 
ings gathered  from  the  different  sources  which  have 
now  been  reviewed,  besides  the  weight  of  external  evi- 
dence attaching  to  them  severally,  considerations  may 
be  drawn  from  internal  grounds  in  the  nature  of  these 
readings  themselves.  The  most  general  rule  is  that  the 
reading  which  will  most  satisfactorily  account  for  the 
others  is  the  true  one.  And  here  recourse  must  be  had 
to  the  various  modes  in  which  errors  arise,  as  previously 


THE  CRITICISM   OF  THE  TEXT  175 

exhibited.  For  this  reason  the  more  difficult  reading, 
or  that  which  contains  unusual  forms,  is  often  to  be  re- 
garded as  the  original  one,  since  transcribers  would  be 
naturally  tempted  by  the  difficulty  to  substitute  an 
easier  reading  or  a  more  customary  expression.  Further, 
that  which  yields  the  best  sense,  and  agrees  best  with 
the  context  and  the  scope  of  the  writer,  has  a  claim  to 
be  regarded  as  the  true  reading.  The  style  of  the 
author  may  also  furnish  a  presumption  in  favor  of  one 
reading  and  against  another.  This  is  a  criterion,  how- 
ever, which  has  often  been  abused.  False  conclusions 
have  in  many  cases  been  reached  by  judging  of  the 
genuineness  of  passages  by  rhetorical  maxims  or  fancied 
characteristics  of  style. 

There  is  no  collateral  source  of  information  about  the 
text  prior  to  the  Septuagint.  Its  condition  previously 
can  only  be  inferred  from  an  examination  of  the  text 
itself.  An  improper  use  has  been  made  of  duplicate 
passages  on  the  assumption  that  they  must  originally 
have  been  identical  in  every  word  and  phrase,  and  that 
every  deviation  of  one  from  the  other  is  a  textual  error 
requiring  correction.  Thus  Num.  xxiv.  17b,  "^ni^s  fH^^ 
no  ^32l"b3  I|?'^p1  Hijiia,  '  shall  smite  through  the  corners 
of  Moab  and  break  down  all  the  sons  of  tumult,'  is  re- 
peated with  variations  in  Jer.  xlviii.  45b,  nxs  bD5<ni 
"ji^T?  '^Da  1p7p1  ai?i^,  '  hath  devoured  the  corner  of  Moab 
and  the  crown  of  the  head  of  the  sons  of  tumult ; ' 
but  these  variations  are  not  errors  of  transcription. 
One  inspired  writer  in  adopting  the  language  of  another 
did  not  feel  bound  to  repeat  it  verbatim,  but  in  the  con- 
fidence of  his  equal  inspiration  modified  the  form  at 
pleasure  to  suit  his  immediate  purpose.  So  the  Psalms 
that  occur  more  than  once  with  some  change  in  the  ex- 
pressions by  no  means  warrant  the  conclusion  that  only 
pne  of  them   has  been   accurately  preserved,  or  that 


176  GENERAL  INTRODUCTION 

neither  has,  and  the  true  original  must  be  elicited  by  a 
comparison  and  correction  of  both.  Both  copies  are 
authentic  ;  and  their  very  discrepancies  are  proof  of 
their  careful  preservation,  and  the  conscientious  pains 
both  of  the  collectors  of  the  Canon  and  of  subsequent 
transcribers  in  retaining  each  in  its  integrity  and  keep- 
ing them  from  being  assimilated  to  each  other.  Ps. 
liii.  is  not  an  erroneous  copy  of  Ps.  xiv.,  nor  vice  versa  ; 
but  an  adaptation  of  an  earlier  Psalm  to  a  new  situa- 
tion. As  Delitzsch  correctly  remarks,  **a  later  poet, 
perhaps  in  the  time  of  Jehoshaphat  or  Hezekiah,  has 
given  to  David's  Psalm  a  reference  to  the  most  recently 
experienced  catastrophe  of  judgment."  Ps.  xviii.  and  2 
Sam.  xxii.  are  two  different  forms  of  the  same  Psalm, 
the  former  as  it  was  sung  in  the  sanctuary,  the  latter 
most  probably  as  it  was  current  in  the  mouths  of  the 
people  when  the  Books  of  Samuel  were  written. 

Wrong  inferences  have  also  been  drawn  from  the  im- 
perfect structure  of  certain  alphabetic  acrostics.  Thus 
in  Ps.  ix.  the  letters  from  Aleph  to  Kaph  mark  the  ini- 
tials of  verses,  though  with  some  irregularities.  Ps.  x. 
begins  with  the  next  letter  Lamedh,  aud  toward  its 
close  the  four  last  letters  of  the  alphabet  occur  in  regu- 
lar order ;  but  in  the  intervening  verses  the  alphabetic 
structure  is  entirely  disregarded,  although  their  number 
corresponds  with  that  of  the  letters  omitted.  This  is 
not  due  to  an  erroneous  text  or  a  reshaping  of  the 
Psalm ;  but,  as  Delitzsch  properly  insists,  the  Psalmist 
did  not  allow  himself  to  be  fettered  by  regularity  of  form 
when  it  interfered  with  the  free  expression  of  his  thought. 
He  also  refers  to  the  fact  that  the  Syriac  presents  simi- 
lar irregularities  in  alphabetic  poems. 

The  failure  of  the  text  to  correspond  with  the  de- 
mands of  certain  hypotheses,  which  have  been  obtruded 
upon  it,  has  also  led  to  the  unfounded  charge  of  textual 


THE   CRITICISM    OF   THE  TEXT  177 

errors.  Bertlieau  devised  a  very  ingenious  scheme  of 
dividing  the  Mosaic  h\ws  into  seven  groups,  each 
group  containing  seven  decalogues ;  and  he  carried  it 
through  by  assuming  dislocations  and  interpolations 
sufficient  for  his  purpose.  As  some  of  the  laws  in  Ex. 
xxi.-xxiii.  contain  groups  of  ten,  it  has  been  inferred 
that  the  entire  section  was  originally  a  series  of  deca- 
logues, and  that  these  have  been  defaced  or  mutilated 
by  errors  in  the  text,  and  the  attempt  has  been  repeat- 
edly made  to  remove  these  errors,  and  thus  restore  the 
laws  to  their  primitive  form.  But  the  wide  divergence 
in  the  results  reached  shows  that  no  satisfactory  con- 
clusion has  yet  been  attained,  and  the  primary  assump- 
tion still  lacks  confirmation.  Textual  errors  have  been 
charged  upon  poetical  passages  because  the  lines  con- 
travene certain  rules  which  have  been  formulated  for 
Hebrew  verse ;  but  the  question  arises  whether  the 
rules  may  not  be  discredited  rather  than  the  text,  when 
these  are  not  in  harmony. 

The  errors  assumed  to  exist  on  insufficient  grounds, 
such  as  have  now  been  referred  to,  have  been  thought 
to  be  so  numerous  as  to  throw  discredit  upon  the  care 
with  which  the  text  was  preserved  during  this  early 
period,  and  to  indicate  that  it  was  very  uncertain  and 
inaccurate.  There  is  no  good  reason,  however,  for  such 
an  opinion.  Nevertheless,  there  are  occasional  errors 
which  are  obvious ;  and  as  they  appear  in  the  versions 
as  well,  they  must  have  antedated  them.  Where  there 
are  no  external  helps  for  their  correction,  we  can  only 
have  recourse  to  critical  conjecture.  This  should  be 
only  sparingly  used,  and  should  be  restricted  to  cases 
of  actual  necessity.  The  unlimited  use  made  of  it  by 
some  critics  converts  the  text  into  what  they  themselves 
would  have  written  instead  of  what  the  author  actually 
wrote. 

12 


178  GENERAL   INTRODUCTION 

Justus  Olshausen^  asserted  that  "the  most  palpa- 
ble errors  and  most  manifest  deficiencies  of  the  text 
were  not  recognized  as  such,  or  at  least  were  left  un- 
touched, when  it  was  authoritatively  established,  and 
this  evidently  rests  not  upon  a  comparison  of  manu- 
scripts, but  in  every  part  of  the  collection  upon  only  a 
single  authority,  upon  a  single,  often  seriously  damaged 
manuscript  which  was  followed  with  slavish  fidelity." 
Lagarde  ^  subsequently  propounded  the  same  hypothesis 
that  all  Hebrew  manuscripts  are  traceable  to  one  faulty 
source,  but  based  it  on  a  somewhat  different  reason.  He 
assumes  that  the  extraordinary  points  over  certain 
words  or  letters  indicate  according  to  Greek  and  S^^rian 
usage  that  they  should  be  expunged,  that  letters  written 
above  the  line  were  a  later  addition,  and  that  open  spaces 
in  the  lines  mark  a  hole  in  the  parchment,  or  show  that 
the  skin  was  imperfectly  tanned  and  could  not  be  written 
upon,  or  that  the  transcriber  could  not  read  the  copy 
before  him,  or  was  not  at  the  moment  provided  with 
the  red  ink  needed  for  headings.  He  then  proceeds  "  if 
now  puncta  extraordinaria  and  litercE  suspenses  of  the 
Hebrew  text  prove  that  the  copyists  have  made  mistakes, 
and  if  the  Piska  implies  that  some  casualty  had  befallen 
the  scribe  or  the  skin  on  which  he  was  writing,  all  manu- 
scripts which  have  these  points,  letters  floating  in  air, 
and  open  spaces  must  necessarily  be  slavishly  faithful 
copies  of  the  same  original.  It  would  be  possible, 
though  surprising,  that  all  copyists  should  have  the 
same  correct  idea  in  the  same  place,  but  that  all  should 
independently  of  one  another  and  of  the  copy  before 
them  have  made  the  same  mistake  in  the  same  spot, 
and  have  corrected  it  in  the  same  way,  is  unthinkable." 

1  Die  Psalmen  Erklart,  1853,  p.  18. 

2  Anmerkungen  ziir  Griechischen  Uebersetzung  der  Proverbien, 
1863,  pp.  1,  2. 


THE   CRITICISM    OF   THE   TEXT  179 

If,  however,  the  Hebrew  text  was  already  traditionally 
settled  and  could  not  be  disturbed,  when  these  points 
and  letters  of  unusual  size,  form,  and  position  were  ap- 
pended, whether  they  expressed  the  critical  doubts 
above  suggested,  or  were  intended  as  reminders  of 
other  teachings  of  the  schools  orally  given  but  now  for- 
gotten, it  is  quite  conceivable  that  copyists  should  value 
and  perpetuate  them.  Besides,  there  were  minor  diver- 
sities in  the  text  that  prevailed  at  different  influential 
centres  notwithstanding  the  agreement  in  general,  as 
appears  from  the  variant  readings  of  the  Babylonish 
and  Palestine  Jews  before  spoken  of,  and  from  incon- 
sistencies in  the  Massora  itself  indicating  some  slight 
disagreement  among  leading  authorities  at  that  early 
period.  There  is  not  that  absolute  unanimity,  there- 
fore, in  the  earliest  obtainable  form  of  the  text,  which 
the  theory  of  a  single  manuscript  source  implies.  In 
the  language  of  Dr.  Dillmann,^  "The  assertion  of  P. 
de  Lagarde  that  all  Hebrew  manuscripts  are  descended 
from  one  parent  manuscript  with  all  its  errors  is  so 
improbable  in  itself,  and  so  poorly  supported  by  the 
alleged  testimony  of  a  late  Christian  author,  that  no  one 
else  will  probably  assent  to  it." 

The  sum  of  the  whole  matter  is  this.  The  Hebrew 
manuscripts  cannot  compare  with  those  of  the  New 
Testament  either  in  antiquity  or  number,  but  they  have 
been  written  with  greater  care  and  exhibit  fewer  various 
readings.  In  fact  the  various  readings  obtained  from 
an  extensive  collation  of  the  Hebrew  manuscripts  are  of 
little  importance,  for  they  all  represent  substantially 
what  is  known  as  the  Massoretic  text.  This  is  so 
minutely  guarded  by  the  Massora,  that  it  can  by  its  aid 
be  accurately  determined,  and  traced  back  long  prior  to 

'  Bibeltext  dea  A.  T.  in  Herzog-Plitt  Encyklopadie,  II.,  p.  388. 


180  GENERAL    INTRODUCTION 

existing  manuscripts.  It  is  further  shown  by  the  Tal- 
mud, as  well  as  by  the  testimony  of  Origen  and  Jerome, 
to  have  been  regarded  as  a  settled  and  inviolable  text 
in  their  day,  and  can  thus  be  traced  back  century  by 
century  from  the  fifth  to  the  second  century  of  the 
Christian  era.  The  same  is  freshly  confirmed  by  the 
Latin  version  of  Jerome,  the  Syriac  Peshito,  the  Jewish 
Targums  and  the  Greek  versions  of  the  second  century, 
all  which  agree  substantially  with  the  text  as  we  possess 
it  at  present.  Their  deviations  are  of  minor  consequence, 
though  affording  material  for  its  correction  in  some  in- 
dividual cases.  The  Septuagint  in  the  third  century 
B.C.,  and  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch  diverge  from  it 
much  more  widely ;  but  neither  of  them  offers  a  text 
that  is  now  regarded  by  scholars  as  comparable  in  accu- 
racy with  the  Hebrew.  And  their  divergence,  whether 
laid  to  the  account  of  inaccurate  Hebrew  sources  or  to 
liberties  taken  by  Greek  translators  and  Samaritan 
copyists,  does  not  prove  that  there  was  not  at  the  same 
time  an  authorized  and  reliable  text  represented  in 
standard  copies.  The  Septuagint  may  be  of  service  in 
correcting  the  Hebrew  text  in  certain  cases ;  but  the 
Samaritan  Pentateuch  is  valueless  for  purposes  of 
criticism. 

Prior  to  those  which  have  just  been  mentioned  there 
are  no  external  authorities  with  which  to  compare  the 
Hebrew  text.  But  an  examination  of  the  text  itself 
does  not  reveal  the  numerous  errors  which  some  have 
thought  to  find  there.  And  there  is  no  reason  to  doubt 
that  the  text  was  even  then  guarded  with  sedulous  care 
by  the  scribes  who  had  special  charge  of  it  from  the 
time  of  Ezra.  There  are  indeed  some  manifest  errors 
which  may  in  part  be  corrected  by  parallel  passages ; 
the  rest  must  be  left  to  critical  conjecture.  The  reten- 
tion of  the  former  class,  however,  though  the  remedy 


THE   CRITICISM   OF  THE  TEXT  181 

was  SO  close  at  hand,  is  a  fresh  evidence  of  that  rigid 
adherence  to  the  letter,  which  has  so  remarkably  safe- 
guarded the  Old  Testament.  It  may  be  safely  said  that 
no  other  work  of  antiquity  has  been  so  accurately  trans- 
mitted. 


INDEX 


Abba  Salama,  100 

Aben  Ezra    on     Hebrew    vowel 

signs,  63 
Age  of  Hebrew  manuscripts,  how 

determined,  78 
Agglutinative  languages,  4 
Alcuin,  revision  of  the  Latin  text, 

119 
Aldine  edition  of  the  Septuagint, 

97 
Alexander  the  Great,  86 
Alexandrinus  codex,  97 
Alphabetic  acrostics,  critical  use 

of,  176 
Alting,  45 
Anglo-Saxon  version  mediate  in 

both  Testaments,  82 
Antiochus  Epiphanes,  154 
Antiquity  and   authority    of    the 

vowel  signs,  63  ff. 
Antwerp  polyglot,  98,  158 
Aquila,  89  and  note ;  his  version, 

90,  92,  1 16  ;  agreement  with  the 

Massoretic  text,  170 
Arabic   language    and   literature, 

13,  14  ;     relation    to    Hebrew, 

33  ;  originally  without  vowels, 

65 
Arabic  versions,  102,  141 
Arabisms  in  Hebrew,  20 
Aramaeisms,  proper  and  improper, 

20,  22 
Aramean  in  the  Old  Testament, 

1 ;  in  the  New  Testament,  40 
Aramean  inscriptions,  61 


Aramean  language  and  literature, 
13,  14;  displaced  Hebrew,  38; 
Jewish  and  Christian,  common 
characteristics,  39 ;  differences, 
40 ;  extant  writings,  40 

Arias  Montanus,  155 

Aristeas'  account  of  the  Septua- 
gint, 83 ;  discredited,  85 

Aristobulus,  83  note,  84 

Armenian  version,  101 

Assyrian  language  and  literature, 
13,  14,  15 

Asterisk  in  the  Hexapla,  93 

Augustin's  attitude  toward  Je- 
rome's version,  115,  117 

Babylonish  vowel  signs,  72 
Bachmann  published  parts  of  the 

Ethiopic  version,  101 
Bacon,  Roger,  state  of  the  Latin 

text,  121 
Bardelli  edited  Daniel  in  Coptic, 

101 
Bellarmin,  the  Vulgate,  128,  129 
Ben   Asher,    71;    codex   of,    80; 

table  of  various  readings,  154 
Ben  Naphtali,  71;  codex  of,  80; 

table  of  various  readings,  154 
Berliner  on  Onkelos,  104 
Biblia  Regia,  158 
Bohairic  version,  101 
Bomberg,  enumeration  of  verses 

in  the  Hebrew  Bible,  155;  his 

rabbinical  Bible,  156 
Books  for  writing,  143 


183 


184 


INDEX 


Bos,  Lambert,  95  note 

Buxtorf  (father),  62  ;  answers 
Levita,  63 ;  his  rabbinical  Bible, 
156 

Buxtorf  (son),  58  ;  his  hypothesis 
concerning  Hebrew  letters,  59  ; 
vowel  points,  64,  66  note,  67 
note ;  on  expressions  in  the  Tal- 
mud, 68  note 


Cornill,  the  Ethiopic  version,  100 ; 

Coptic  version,  101 
Correctoria  Biblica,  119,  120 
Council   of  Trent,    the   Vulgate, 

122-126 
Council  of  Vienna,  appointment  of 

Hebrew  Professors,  42 
Critical  conjecture,  177 
Critical   editions  of  the    Hebrew 


Cappellus,  58,  62  ;  vowel  points, 

64 ;  the  Septuagint  and  Hebrew 

text,  171,  172 
Carving   on  solid  materials,    142, 

143 
Cassiodorus,    correction    of    the 

Latin  text,  119 
Castell,  Edmund,  44,  159 
Chaldee,  39  ;  see  Aramean 
Chapters,  when  introduced,  155 
Charlemagne,  revival  of  Hebrew 

study,  42  ;  revision  of  the  Latin 

text,  119 
Charles  IL,  159 
Chigi,    Cardinal,   the   Septuagint 

Daniel,  99 
Chrysostom,  100 
Cistercian  revision   of  the  Latin 

text,  119 
Clement  VIII.,  the  Vulgate,  129 
Cleopatra,  85 
Codex   Alexandrinus,   Vaticanus, 

Sinaiticus,        Friderico-Augus- 

tanus,  97 
Codices,  standard,  79 
Comparative  school    of    Hebrew 

study,  44 
Complutensian  polyglot,  97,  155, 

157 
Comprehensive  school  of  Hebrew 

study,  46 
Constantine,  76 
Copiousness  of  Hebrew,  30,  31 
Coptic  version,  101 


Criticism,  higher,  160-162;  text- 
ual, 162;  sources  of,  163;  in- 
ternal grounds,  174,  175 ;  sum- 
mary of  results,  179-181 

Cromwell,  Oliver,  159 

Cyril,  Slavic  version,  101 

Damasus,  Bishop  of  Rome,  114 

Daniel,  Theodotion  substituted  for 
the  Septuagint,  87,  99 ;  Septu- 
agint version  of,  99  ;  Coptic 
version  of,  101 

Danz,  45 

Decalogues,  critical  use  of,  177 

Delia  Valle,  the  Samaritan  Pen- 
tateuch, 129,  130 

Demetrius  Phalereus,  83,  84,  85 

De  Rossi,  81,  157,  164 

De  Rossi,  Azariah,  105 

Deuteronomy  in  the  Septuagint, 
87 

Dialects  of  Hebrew,  18 

Dillmann,  the  document  P,  29 
note ;  edited  parts  of  the  Ethio- 
pic version,  101 ;  the  hypothesis 
of  a  single  manuscript,  179 

Drusius,  95  note 

Duplicate  passages,  evidence  of 
errors,  145 ;  wrong  use  in  crit- 
icism, 175 

EccLESiASTES  in  the  Septuagint, 

87 
Ecclesiasticus,  prologue  to,  87 


INDEX 


185 


Egyptian  versions,  101 
Egyptian  words  in  Hebrew,  35 
Elias  Levita,  42,  63 
Enneai)la,  94 
Epanorthotffi,  119,  120 
Epiplianius,  the  Septuagint,  85; 
Aquila,    89  note;    lemnisk,  94 
note 
Erasmus,  correction  of  the  Latin 

of  the  Vulgate,  121 
Errors  of    transcription  guarded 
against,  144;  shown  by  duplicate 
passages,  145  ;  not  made  by  col- 
lectors of  the  canon,  146 ;  how 
they  arise,  163;  intentional  al- 
terations, 164 
Ethiopic  language,  14 
Ethiopic  version,  100 
Eusebius,  95  and  note,  96 
Ewald,  language  of  the  document 

P,  26  note ;  his  grammar,  46 
Extraordinary  points,  152 

Families  of  languages,  4 
Field,  94,  95,  98,  113 
Firkowitch,  71,  81 
Franciscan  correctorium,  120 
Frankel,  Targum  of  Onkelos,  105 ; 

of  Jonathan,  107 
Friderico-Augustanus,  codex,  97 
Frumentius,  101 

Gallic  AN  Psalter,  115 

Geiger,  Jerusalem  Targum,  110 

Gemara,  41,  149,  152,  166 

Georgic  version,  101 

Gesenius,  46 ;  Hebrew  letters,  60 ; 
age  of  the  Samaritan  Penta- 
teuch, 131;  its  critical  worth, 
135-138 ;  its  relation  to  the  Sep- 
tuagint, 139,  140 

Gheniza,  76,  81 

Giesebrecht,  the  document  P,  25, 
26 


Gothic  version,  101 

Grabe,  edition  of  the  Septuagint, 
98 

Grammatical  period  of  Hebrew 
study,  41 

Grecian  in  the  New  Testament, 
17 

Greek  words  in  Hebrew,  36 

Gregory  XIIL,  98 

Gregory  XIV.,  128,  129 

Grotius,  the  Samaritan  Penta- 
teuch, 140 

Groups  of  languages,  4 

Gussetius,  45 

Haphtaroth,  75,  154 

Hebrew  accents,  74 

Hebrew  Bible,  early  editions  of, 

156 
Hebrew,    the,     cited    by    Greek 

fathers,  100 
Hebrew   coin   and   square   letter, 
57  ff.,  causes  of  change,   time 
of  transition,  61,  147;   not  af- 
fect the  integrity  of  the  text, 
62 
Hebrew  inscriptions  without  vow- 
els, 65 
Hebrew    manuscripts,    75  ff.  ;  for 
Synagogue  use,  75,  76 ;  private, 
77  ;  in  rabbinical  character,  78 ; 
determination  of  their  age,  78 ; 
massoretic  and  non-massoretic, 
79  ;  standard  codices,  79  ;  oldest 
MSS.,  80,  81 
Hebrew,  the  language  of  the  Old 
Testament  mainly,  1 ;  derivation 
of  the  word,  16;    its  usage,  17; 
its  application   to   a   language, 
17;  the  language  of  Palestine, 
no  trace  of  polytheistic  origin,  its 
dialects,  provincialisms,  18;  in 
prose  and  poetry,  19 ;  in  differ- 
ent   periods,  21 ;  in    the   later 


186 


INDEX 


books  of  the  Old  Testament,  22 ; 
its  stationary  character  no  ob- 
jection to  the  antiquity  of  the 
Pentateuch,  22-24  ;  its  copious- 
ness, 30,  31 ;  synonyms,  31 ; 
economy  of  roots  and  words,  32 ; 
lost  roots,  33  ;  relation  to  the 
other  Semitic  tongues,  33,  34; 
Egyptian  words,  35 ;  Sanscrit, 
Persian,  Greek  words,  36;  its 
words  in  western  tongues,  37 ; 
when  it    ceased   to  be  spoken, 

37,  38 ;  succeeded  by  Aramean, 

38,  39  ;  periods  of  its  study,  41 ; 
vowel  signs,  41,  63  ff. ;  when 
introduced,  71 ;  two  systems, 
72 ;  their  correctness,  73,  74 ; 
words  anciently  separated  in 
writing  (?),  144;  pronunciation 
orally  preserved,  147 

Heidenheim,  81 

Hellenist,  17 

Heptaglot    lexicon     of    Edmund 

Castell,  44,  159 
Heptapla,  94  note 
Hesychius,  revision  of  the  Septu- 

agint  text,  96,  99 
Hexapla    of    Origen,    91-93;    at 

Csesarea,   95 ;    effect  upon   the 

Septuagint  text,  95 
Ilexaplaric-Syriac     version     me- 
diate   in    the    Old    Testament, 

82  ;  made  from  the  Septuagint, 

100 
Hillel,  codex  of,  80 
History  of  the  text,  four  periods, 

142 
Hody,  94 
Houbigant,  156 
Hugo    St.    Clair's    correctorium, 

120 
Ilupfeld,  vowel   points,  66  note; 

Talmudic  phrases,  70  note 
Hypolemnisk  in  the  Hexapla,  94 


Idiomatic  school  of  Hebrewstudy, 
45 

Indo-European  family  differs  from 
the  Semitic  in  external  flexion, 
5 ;  constitution  of  roots,  alpha- 
bet, 6,7;  richness  in  forms, 
number  of  branches,  constant 
change,  8 ;  less  pictorial,  10 ; 
greater  precision,  11 

Indo-European  races,  their  char- 
acteristics, 9 ;  put  in  charge  of 
the  New  Testament,  10,  12 

Inflected  languages,  4 ;  embracing 
the  Indo-European  and  Semitic 
families,  5 

Inscriptions  of  Mesa  and  Siloam, 
words  separated,  144 

Irenaeus,  84,  90 

Isaac  Nathan,  155 

Isolating  languages,  4 

Israel,  codex  of,  80 

Itala,  mediate  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, 82  ;  made  from  the  Sep- 
tuagint, 100,  114;  revised  by 
Jerome,  114;  reproduced  from 
quotations,  114  note 

Jeremiah  much  transposed  in  the 
Septuagint,  87 

Jericho,  codex  of,  80 

Jerome,  12,  42,  58,  61,  95;  prior 
to  Hebrew  vowel  signs,  66; 
K'ri  andK'thibh,  71 ;  pronuncia- 
tion of  Hebrew,  74 ;  Aquila,  90 ; 
Theodotion,  Symmachus,  91  ; 
and  other  Greek  versions,  92; 
revisions  of  the  Septuagint,  96 
note ;  revised  the  Latin  version, 
114,  115;  his  own  version,  115, 
116  and  note;  superseded  pre- 
vious Latin  versions,  117;  his 
capitula,  149  ;  fixed  Hebrew 
text,  166  ;  agreement  with  Mas- 
soretic,  170,  172 


INDEX 


187 


Jerusalem  Targum,  108-110 

Jew,  17 

Jewish  coin  letter,  57 ;  tradition 
respecting  vowels,  65 

Jews  wrongly  charged  with  cor- 
rupting the  text,  151 

Jews'  language,  17 

Job,  Targum  on,  103 

Jonathan,  Targum  of,  106-108 

Josephus,  84 

Judah  ha-Kadosh,  152 

Justin  Martyr,  84,  85 

Kennicott,  81,  130,  131,  156,  164 

Kimchi,  David,  42,  156 

Kimchi,  Joseph,  42 

Kimchi,  Moses,  42 

Kopp,  60 

K'ri  and  K'thibh,  71,  148,  165 

Lagarde,  restoration  of  the  Sep- 
tuagint  text,  99  ;  hypothesis  of  a 
single  manuscript,  178,  179 

Lanfranc,  revision  of  the  Latin 
text,  119 

Langton,  Stephen,  introduced 
chapters,  155 

Language,  unity  of,  2,  5 ;  families, 
isolating,  agglutinative,  inflect- 
ed groups,  4 ;  Semitic  and  Indo- 
European  contrasted,  5-12 

Le  Clerc,  age  of  the  Samaritan 
Pentateuch,  131 

Lemnisk  in  the  Hexapla,  93 

Leo  X.,  157 

Levita,  Elias,  42;  Hebrew  vow- 
els, 63 

Leviticus  in  the  Septuagint,  87 

London  polyglot,  98,  158,  159 

Lucian,  revision  of  the  Septua- 
gint text,  96,  99 

Luther's  Hebrew  Bible,  156 

Lyra,  Nicolaus  de,  43 

Lysimacbus,  87 


Manuscripts,  Hebrew,  75  flf.  ;  for 

Synagogue  use,  75,  76 ;  private, 

77  ;  in  rabbinical  character,  78  ; 

age  how  determined,  78  ;  massu- 

retic   and    non-massoretic,    79 ; 

standard    codices,     79 ;     oldest 

MSS.,   80,  81;  worth  of,  how 

estimated,    164 ;  represent    the 

massoretic  text,  164 

Margoliouth,  81  and  note 

Massora,  41,  71,  77,  78,  151,  153; 

marginal,  terminal,  153;  great, 

little,  154 

Massoretic,    period    of    Hebrew 

study,   41 ;    verses,    154 ;    text 

guarded  by  the  Massora,  165 ; 

not  the  creation  of  the  Masso- 

rites,   165 ;  superior  to  that  of 

the  Septuagint,  174 

Massorites,  152 ;  signs  for  vowels 

and  accents,  153 
Memphitic  version,  101 
Methodius,  Slavic  version,  101 
Metobelos  in  the  Hexapla,  93 
Miesrob,  Armenian  version,  101 
Mishna,  41,  149,  152,  166 
Montfaucon,  95  note 
Morinus,     John,   the     Samaritan 
Pentateuch,  130,  131 ;  the  Sep- 
tuagint, 171 
Muis,  Simeon  de,  the  Septuagint, 
171 

Nebuchadnezzar,  86 

Nicolaus,    revision   of  the    Latin 

text,  119 
Non-massoretic    manuscripts    do 

not  exist,  79 

Obelos  in  the  Hexapla,  93 
Octapla,  94 

Odessa  manuscripts,  80 
Olshausen,  Justus,  hypothesis  of 
a  single  manuscript,  178 


188 


INDEX 


Onkelos,  68  note;  Targum  of, 
104-106 

Oriental  languages,  12 

Origen,  42,  58,  61 ;  prior  to  He- 
brew vowel  signs,  66;  pronun- 
ciation of  Hebrew,  74 ;  his  Hex- 
apla,  91,  92 ;  its  aim  and  meth- 
od, 93  ;  his  expulsion  and  death, 
95 ;  agreement  with  the  masso- 


Pamphilus,  revision  of  the  Sep- 
tuagint  text,  96,  99 

Parashoth,  76  ;  pretalmudic,  149  ; 
fifty-four,  154  and  note 

Parisian  polyglot,  158 

Paul  of  Telia,  113 

Pellioan,  Conrad,  43 

Pentapla,  94 

Pentateuch,  antiquity  of,  not  dis- 
credited by  the  character  of  the 
language,  22-24  ;  in  the  Septua- 
gint,  87 

Pentateuchal  document  P  alleged 
to  be  of  late  date,  24;  argued 
by  Wellhausen  and  Giesebrecht, 
25,  26 ;  answered  by  Riehm  and 
Ryssel,  25  note  ;  Ewald,  26 
note ;  Dr.  Driver,  27-29 ;  Dill- 
mann,  29  note;  not  proved  by 
the  use  of  ">:fi5, 47-53,  or  Tibin, 
54-56 

Persian  words  in  Hebrew,  36 

Peshito,  82;  why  so  called,  by 
whom  made.  111 ;  general  char- 
acter, relation  to  the  Septua- 
gint,  112, 171 ;  its  date,  112, 113 ; 
agrees  in  general  with  the  mas- 
soretic  text,  171 

Phalaris,  epistles  of,  161 

Phenician  monuments  without 
vowels,  65  ;  sometimes  the 
words  separate,  144 

PhU«,  84 


Pinner,  80 

Points,  extraordinary,  152 
Polyglots,  97,  98,  157-159 
Post-massoretic  period,  155 
Prideaux,  the  age  of  the  Samari- 
tan Pentateuch,  131 
Primitive  language,  search  for  the, 

2,  3 
Prophetic  style  in  Hebrew,  20 
Proverbs,    transpositions    in    the 

Septuagint,  87 
Provincialisms  in  Hebrew,  18 
Ptolemy  Philadelphus,  83,  84,  85, 

86 
Ptolemy  Philometor,  87 
Ptolemy  Soter,  85,  86  and  note 

QuiNTA  version,  92 
Quotations  in  early  writers,  165 

Rabbinical  Bible,  108,  156 

Raymund  Martini,  43 

Reuchlin,  John,  43 

Reuchlin  manuscript,  81 

Riehm,  the  language  of  the  docu- 
ment P,  25,  and  note 

Roman  Psalter,  115 

Roots  in  the  Hebrew  Bible,  the 
number  of,  30 

Ryssel,  the  language  of  the  Pen- 
tateuchal Elohist,  25  note 

Sahidic  version,  101 

Samaritan  dialect,  13  ;  letters,  59 ; 
no  vowels,  65 

Samaritan  Pentateuch  when  first 
brought  to  Europe,  129 ;  first 
printed,  130,  its  origin,  131- 
134;  its  text,  134;  its  critical 
value,  135  ;  shown  by  Gesenius 
to  be  worthless,  135-138 ;  rela- 
tion to  the  Septuagint,  139,  140 , 
verses  and  sections,  149 

Samaritan,  the,  cited  by  Greek 
fathers,  100 


INDEX 


189 


Samaritan  version,  141 

Sanbuki,  codex  of,  80 

Sanscrit  words  in  Hebrew,  36 

Scaliger,  Joseph,  129 

Schools  for  Jewish  learning,  41 ; 
of  Hebrew  study  among  Chris- 
tians, 44-46 

Schultens,  the  number  of  Hebrew 
roots  and  words,  31 ;  compara- 
tive study  of  Hebrew,  44 

Scribes  date  from  Ezra,  146; 
their  function,  146,  147,  150; 
critical  corrections  of,  151 

Sections  pretalmudic,  149;  open 
and  closed,  149 

Sedarim,  155 

Semitic  languages  differ  from  Indo- 
European  in  internal  flexion,  5 ; 
constitution  of  roots,  alphabet, 
6  ;  triliteral  roots,  verbal  spe- 
cies, 7 ;  less  rich  in  inflections, 
fewer  branches,  more  station- 
ary, 8 ;  more  pictorial,  10 ;  less 
definite,  11;  fitted  for  the  Old 
Testament  revelation,  12; 
spoken  mainly  by  descendants 
of  Shem,  12,  13 ;  their  proper 
home,  13 ;  languages  of  relig- 
ion, 13  ;  principal  branches,  13 

Semitic  races,  characteristics  of, 
9 ;  suited  for  the  preliminary 
revelation,  9 

Semitic  words  in  western  tongues, 
37 

Septima  version,  92 

Septuagint,  which  letter  in  use 
when  made,  <j2  ;  prior  to  vowel 
signs,  66 ;  transliteration  of  He- 
brew, 74  ;  ancient  and  im- 
mediate, 82;  Aristeas'  account 
of  its  origin,  83  ;  Aristobulus, 
Josephus,  Philo,  Justin  Mar- 
tyr, Irenaeus,  the  Talmud,  84 ; 
probable  origin,  86,  87;  dif- 
ferent   translators    of    various 


ability,  87;  liberties  taken  in 
translation,  88  ;  how  regarded 
by  the  Jews,  88,  89 ;  by  Chris- 
tians, 89  ;  corruption  of  the  text, 
91 ;  the  Ilexapla,  92,  93,  95 ;  re- 
visions of  its  text,  96 ;  manu- 
scripts, and  printed  editions,  97, 
98 ;  Lagarde's  plan  of  restoring 
its  text,  99 ;  Daniel,  99 ;  ver- 
sions made  from  it,  100-102  ; 
divergence  from  the  massoretic 
text,  171-173 

Sexta  version,  92 

Shemitish  languages,  12  ;  see 
Semitic 

Siloam  inscription,  57 

Sinai,  codex  of,  80 

Sinaiticus  codex,  97 

Sixtine  edition  of  the  Septuagint, 
98;  of  the  Vulgate,  127,  128 

Sixtus  v.,  98,  127 

Slavic  version,  101 

Solomon  ben  Ishmael,  155 

Sopherim,  post-talmudic  tract,  85 
note,  147 

Sorbonne,  correctorium,  120 

Stade  alleges  falsification  at  the 
collection  of  the  canon,  146 

Strack,  H.  L.,  80,  81  and  note 

Summary  of  the  results  of  textual 
criticism,  179-181 

Superlinear  vowel  system,  72,  73 

S  wete,  edition  of  the  Septuagint,  98 

Symmachus,  version  of,  91,  92, 
116,  170 

Synagogue  manuscripts  without 
vowels,  65 ;  described,  75,  76 

Synonyms  in  Hebrew,  31 

Syriac,  the,  cited  by  Greek  fa- 
thers, 100 

Syriac  language  and  literature,  13, 
14 ;  without  vowels  originally,  65 

Syro-Arabian  languages,  12 

Syro-Hexaplaric  version,  82,  100; 
its  date  and  character,  113 


190 


INDEX 


Taggin,  codex  of,  80 

Talmud,  41,  57;  prior  to  vowel 
points,  68  ;  its  phrases  ex- 
plained, 68,  69  ;  notices  K'ri 
and  K'thibh,  7 1 ;  on  the  Sep- 
tuagint,  84  and  note ;  rules  for 
copyists,  144  ;  text  already 
fixed,  148  ;  when  committed  to 
writing,  152 ;  number  of  verses, 
154  note 

Talmud  of  Babylon  confused 
Aquila  and  Onkelos,  104  ;  Tar- 
gum  of  Joseph,  107 

Talmud  of  Jerusalem,  Aquila,  90 
note,  104 

Tam  letter,  78 

Targums,  40,  41 ;  prior  to  vowel 
signs,  67 ;  ancient  and  imme- 
diate, 82;  origin  of,  102,  103; 
how  many,  104 ;  Onkelos,  104- 
106  ;  Jonathan,  106-108 ;  Pseu- 
do-Jonathan, Jerusalem,  108, 
109 ;  Hagiographa,  Megilloth, 
none  on  Daniel,  Ezra,  and  Ne- 
hemiah,  110;  correspond  with 
the  massoretic  text,  170 

Tattam  edited  parts  of  the  Coptic 
version,  101 

Tetrapla,  94 

Text,  when  fixed,  150,  166 

Thebaic  version,  101 

Theodotion,  Daniel,  87,  99  ;  his 
life  and  version,  91,  116;  in  the 
Hexapla,  92 ;  agreement  with 
the  massoretic  text,  170 

Tiberias,  doctors  of,  authors  of 
the  vowel  signs,  63 

Tischendorf,  editions  of  the  Sep- 
tuagint,  98 

Traditional  school  of  Hebrew 
study,  44 

Trent,  Council  of,  the  Vulgate, 
122-126  ;  its  decree,  123  note  ; 
differently  understood,  124  ; 
commission  to  correct  the  text, 
125,  126 


Ulphilas,  Gothic  version,  101 
University  of  Paris,  correctorium, 

120 
Urban  VII.,  128 
Us'.K'r,  Archbishop,  64,  95,  140 

Various  readings,  tables  of,  154 

Vaticanus,  codex,  97 

Velsh  letter,  78 

Verses,  pretalmudic,  148 

Versification,  rules  of,  in  criti- 
cism, 177 

Versions,  ancient,  immediate,  me- 
diate, 82  ;  their  critical,  exeget- 
ical  and  hermeneutical  value, 
166,  167 ;  caution  requisite  in 
criticism,  168-170;  their  testi- 
mony regarding  the  massoretic 
text,  170,  171 ;  divergence  of 
the  Septuagint  and  Samaritan 
Pentateuch,  171 ;  how  explained, 
172,  173 

Vowel  points,  41 ;  their  origin,  63 
ff. ;  introduced  by  Massorites, 
153 

Vulgate,  ancient  and  immediate, 
82  ;  Jerome's  version,  so  called, 
previous  usage  of  the  term, 
118,  and  note ;  corruption  of  the 
text,  correction  by  individuals 
and  fraternities,  119  ;  first  print- 
ed editions,  121 ;  in  the  Council 
of  Trent,  122-126;  papal  edi- 
tions, 127-129 

Walton,  prolegomena,  65;  dedi- 
cation, 159 
Watson,  W.  Scott,  130  note 
Wellhausen,  document  P,  25 
Words  in  Hebrew  Bible,  number 
of,  30 

XiMENES,  Cardinal,  revision  of  the 
Vulgate,  122 ;  Complutensian 
polyglot,  157 

ZuNz,  Jerusalem  Targum,  110 


Books  by 
Prof.    Vt  illiam    rienry    Crreen 

D.D.,   LL.D. 
PUBLISHED  BY  CHARLES  SCRIBNER'S  SONS 

3>.     S>^     S>. 

General  Introduction  to  the 
Old  Testament 

The  Text 

8vo,     $1.50 

Contents  :  Its  External  Form — The  Semitic  Family  of  Languages — The  Hebrew  Lan- 
guage— Hebrew  Letters  and  Vowels — Hebrew  Manuscripts — Versions  :  The  Tar- 
gums,  The  Syriac  Peshito,  The  Latin  Vulgate,  The  Samaritan  Pentateuch — The 
History  of  the  Text— The  Criticism  of  the  Text. 

"The  name  of  the  author  is  enough  to  insure  that  marks  of  competent 
scholarship  are  found  in  every  chapter  of  this  introduction.  The  criti- 
cism of  the  Bible  is  attracting  so  much  attention  at  the  present  time  that 
the  pastor  who  cannot  be  an  expert  on  this  subject,  but  who  wishes  to 
know  what  is  being  said  and  done  by  scholars  who  have  devoted  their 
lives  to  critical  Bible  study,  will  find  in  this  book  much  helpful  informa- 
tion on  the  subject  which  it  covers." — The  Advance. 

General  Introduction  to  the 
Old  Testament 

The   Canon 

8vo.    $1.50 

CcwTENTS  :  History  of  Introduction  to  the  Old  Testament-  General  Introduction  to  the 
Old  Testament — The  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament— Testimony  of  the  Bible  in  re- 
gard to  the  Formation  of  the  Canon — The  Critical  Theory  of  the  Formation  of  the 
Canon — The  Determining  Principle  m  the  Formation  of  the  Canon — The  Completion 
of  the  Canon — The  Threefold  Division  of  the  Canon — When  and  by  Whom  Col- 
lected—The Extent  of  the  Canon— The  Canon  of  the  Jews— The  Canon  of  Christ 
and  His  Apostles — The  Canon  of  the  Christian  Church — The  Apocrypha  Condemned 
by  Internal  Evidence — Order  and  Number  of  the  Canonical  Books. 

"  A  very  timely  book.      Naturally  Dr.  Green  could  not  overlook  the 

fact  that  his  views  are  not  those  of  many  of  the  more  recent  writers  on 

the  Old  Testament.     He  has  taken  especial  note  of  the  views  of  Driver 


OTHER    WORKS  BY  PROFESSOR   DR.    GREEN 

Ryle,  and  Wildeboer.  His  arguments  for  the  traditional  date  of  Daniel, 
Ezra,  Nehemiah,  Esther,  and  Chronicles  deserve  the  most  careful  atten- 
tion."— Hartford  Seniinary  Review. 

"  Dr.  Green,  as  his  grammars  and  other  works  testify,  is  beyond  sus- 
picion in  the  matter  of  Biblical,  and  especially  of  Old  Testament  scholar- 
ship. In  the  works  of  Briggs,  Ryle,  and  Wildeboer  the  canon  of  the 
Old  Testament  has  been  ably  dealt  with  from  the  point  of  view  of  the 
'higher  criticism.'  It  is  well  that  the  other  side  should  be  represented, 
and  it  would  be  hard  to  find  one  more  competent  to  represent  it  than 
Dr.  Green,  who  might  be  called  the  Nestor  of  Old  Testament  critics." — 
American  Journal  of  Theology. 


The  Higher  Criticism  of  the 
Pentateuch 

8vo.    $1.50 

Contents  :  The  Old  Testament  and  its  Structure— The  Plan  and  Contents  of  the  Pen- 
tateuch—Moses the  Author  of  the  Pentateuch— The  Unity  of  the  Pentateuch- 
Genuineness  of  the  Laws— The  Bearing  of  the  Divisive  Criticism  on  the  Credibihty 
of  the  Pentateuch  and  on  Supernatural  Rehgion. 

'•  This  book  is  peculiarly  welcome  for  its  grasp  of  the  main  question, 
and  the  precision  and  logical  force  of  its  reasoning.  It  is  a  calm,  cour- 
teous, and  intensely  reasonable  discussion  of  all  the  points  at  issue  by 
one  who  is  familiar  with  all  the  extensive  literature  about  them  and  who 
is  able  to  state  his  position  with  surpassing  clearness. " — The  Christian 
Intelligencer. 

"  Delitzsch  said  that  there  were  not  five  men  in  the  world  qualified  by 
mind  and  attainments  to  understand  the  whole  Pentateuchal  controversy 
and  give  a  well-considered  opinion  on  it  in  all  its  bearings.  If  that  is 
true,  here  is  one  of  the  four.  The  work  is  an  honor  to  America,  the 
best  compendium  of  both  sides  of  the  great  debate  that  has  appeared  in 
Europe  or  in  America.  All  those  in  America  who  believe  the  Bible  to 
be  God's  Word  have  in  Dr.  Green  a  champion,  a  leader,  whose  fairness 
to  opponents  and  clear  perception  of  the  impregnable  rock  abundantly 
qualify  him  for  that  position." — The  Presbyterian  and  Reformed  Review. 

"No  clergyman  should  be  without  this  volume.  .  .  .  We  com- 
mend it  to  every  student  of  the  Bible.     The  author  has  fully  carried  out 


OTHER    WORKS  BY  PROFESSOR   DR.    GREEN- 

his  purpose,  namely,  to  show,  as  briefly  and  compactly  as  possible,  that 
the  faith  of  all  past  ages  in  respect  to  the  Pentateuch  has  not  been  mis- 
taken."—  l^he  Churchman. 

"A  most  valuable  contribution  to  the  literature  of  what  we  may  call 
Scriptural  apologetics.  It  is  a  strong,  learned,  and  logical  argument  for 
the  acceptance  of  the  Pentateuch  as  Christ  accepted  it," — Boston  Tran- 
script. 

"  He  has  stanchly  defended  the  unity  and  the  Mosaic  authorship  of 
the  entire  Pentateuch.  There  is  nothing,  therefore,  in  his  latest  work 
which  he  has  not  repeatedly  said  before ;  but  he  has  put  together  in 
small  compass  the  best  that  can  be  said  in  support  of  the  traditional 
opinion  by  its  ablest  surviving  defender," — The  Nation. 

«     «     « 

The  Unity  of  the  Book  of 
Genesis 

Svo.    $j.oo 

Contents  :  The  Book  of  Genesis— The  Generations  of  the  Heavens  and  the  Earth — The 
Generations  of  Adam — The  Generations  of  Noah — The  Generations  of  the  Sons  of 
Noah — The  Generations  of  Shem — The  Generations  of  Terah — The  Generations  of 
Ishmael— The  Generations  of  Isaac— The  Generations  of  Esau— The  Generations 
of  Jacob — Conclusion. 

"  No  Stronger  or  more  interesting  statement  of  the  conservative  posi- 
tion on  the  question  of  Pentateuchal  criticism  can  be  found  than  this 
volume." — The  Advance. 

"  In  ten  chapters,  covering  the  whole  of  Genesis,  he  considers  calmly 
all  that  is  said  by  these  leaders  (Graf,  Kuenen,  Wellhausen,  Dillmann, 
Reuss,  and  their  followers),  and  as  calmly  and  with  great  point  and 
force  states  the  opposing  considerations.  His  treatment  of  the  second 
chapter  of  Genesis  and  of  the  sixth  to  the  eighth  chapter,  the  asserted 
duplicate  accounts  of  creation  and  of  the  flood,  furnishes  excellent  speci- 
mens of  the  masterly  simplicity  which  is  born  of  comprehensive  knowl- 
edge of  the  facts,  of  clear  induction,  and  of  a  pellucid  style." — Presby- 
terian and  Reformed  Review. 

"  This  work  will  greatly  enhance  Professor  Green's  already  high  repu- 
tation as  one  of  the  foremost  living  scholars  in  the  Old  Testament  field. 


OTHER    WORKS  BY  PROFESSOR  DR.    GREEN 

It  is  an  exhaustive  criticism  of  the  documentary  hypothesis,  so  far  as 
the  book  of  Genesis  is  concerned,  and  aims  to  prove  that  this  hypothesis 
has  no  adequate  foundation  upon  which  to  rest.  .  .  .  The  work  is 
one  which  no  one  interested  in  Old  Testament  study  can  afford  to  ignore. 
It  marks  an  epoch  in  the  formation  of  English-speaking  opinion  on  the 
subject." — The  Churchman. 

"  Professor  Green's  analysis  has  failed  to  shake  our  conviction  that 
the  Book  of  Genesis  was  composed,  like  the  Diatessaron  of  Tatian,  of 
preexisting  accounts,  which  have  been  skilfully  woven  together,  not 
without  leaving  marks  of  the  joiner's  art.  But  he  who  desires  to  know 
what  the  ablest  and  most  thorough  scholarship  in  either  England  or 
America  can  say  in  opposition  to  this  opinion  will  find  it  in  Dr.  Green's 
volume."— 7%^  Outlook. 


Celebration  of  the  Fiftieth  Anniversary 
of  the  Appointment  of 

Professor  William  Henry  Green 

as  an  Instructor  in  Princeton 
Theological  Seminary 

May  fifth,   1896 
With  Portrait.     8vo.     Net,  $1.50 

"The  volume  forms  a  fitting  memento  of  a  rare  and  impressive  occa- 
sion. " —  The  Interior. 

"As  the  addresses  were  by  eminent  speakers,  the  book  has  a  value  of 
its  own  in  addition  to  the  interest  of  the  honored  subject." — Cincinnati 
Herald  and  Presbyter. 

CHARLES  SCRIBNER'S  SONS,  Publishers 
153-157    FIFTH    AVENUE,    NEW    YORK 


^ 


^^^^ 


nm% 


